Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sakharov Prize/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [1].

Sakharov Prize

Featured list candidates/Sakharov Prize/archive1

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found the list, modified it, sourced it, illustrated it, hopefully it's close to featured. Thanks to the community as ever for time and effort spent reviewing the list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Organisations -> organizations (I believe your choice is spelled incorrectly)

The whole article is written in British English, where organisation is the correct spelling. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who had dedicated their lives -> considering how recent the last award was and its "relevancy" I think "have" would be better

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

€ -> What monetary unit does that symbol represent?

The Euro. Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first prize was awarded jointly to South African Nelson Mandela and Russian Anatoly Marchenko -> reword, I don't like this "South African" and "Russian"

I think it's helpful to distinguish the nationalities and to display how diverse the recipients were. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to Cuban dissident Guillermo Fariñas -> I think you should tell us a bit more about him than the fact that he's a "Cuban dissident". Same with Mandela, don't think everyone knows who he is, you should specify. Additionally, I think it would be beneficial for this article to have some info on why these candidates were chosen to receive these awards. Did Mandela do anything in specific to earn it?

The awarding organisation does not provide specific succinct citations so it would be WP:OR for me to describe why I think they won the prize. More information on each recipient can be found in the individual's articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

toreceive -> typo

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prize -> better wording would be more appropriate

Why? It's a prize, after all... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

organisations -> again

See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thats fine. Support from me. Good work and good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lead, good grammar...what should I say more? A really great list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be beneficial to have a sentence or two in the table about their contributions.Cheetah (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree, as long as my synopsis of what has been said about the individuals does not count as WP:OR because the EU don't provide a distinct citation for the award. If you'd prefer me to come up with some stuff I thought was relevant, then okay, I'll look into it. Or, if you'd like me to precis the external link I gave that's fine too. Let me know what you think. (Nice to see you around, by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for replying late, I would like to see a "notes" column added, as well. I think you just need to write a short description on everyone. I'd take it from their respective leads. For example, for Anatoly Marchenko you can say "Soviet dissident, author, and human rights campaigner". I just don't want readers to click on the names one by one just to see who they are. They can always click on the names when they want more information about those recipients, but some basic info should be on this page.Cheetah (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem on the delay getting back to me. I think you're right, as long as the Notes column would not be construed as "why the EU presented the award" (or, as Nergaal asks below, "the reasoning of the award" - that information is not succinctly available), rather, just a synopsis of the winners' highlights. I'll take a look at that shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notes now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Cheetah (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a notes column (with the reasoning of the award)? Also, why are Annan and UN grouped together, while the other multiple awards are separate? Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See above for why I haven't given the reason (in short, the EU don't provide a "reason", so anything I write will be WP:OR with respect to why they got the award). As for being UN & Annan joint recipients, that's how the EU have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, but for Izzat Ghazzawi, where there is no article available, how are the readers supposed to know what he might have done to get the award? If a note column is added with entries like for Annan: "UN secretary general (97-06) during X, Y, and Z crises" would provide a context to the award without going OR-ish. Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Article now available. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notes now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support the list looks good now. Nergaal (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - In my opinion this list meets FL criteria. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.