- Lead
- The college still has strong links with Wales, and about 15% of students are Welsh. -- Wales should be linked before this sentence as Welsh
- About 100 undergraduates enter the college each year and there are about 130 graduate students at the College at any one time. -- The last part of the sentence after and is unclear to me, needs rewording
- Mathematicians to have studied at Jesus College include Nigel Hitchin (Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford since 1997), the Canadian Jonathan Borwein and Jim Mauldon (who taught at Oxford before moving to the United States to teach at Amherst College, Massachusetts). -- Canadian should be plural
- No it shouldn't, as Mauldon wasn't Canadian (it needed a comma, didn't it?!); reworded for clarity to "the Canadian Jonathan Borwein (who was a Rhodes Scholar), and Jim Mauldon (who taught...". BencherliteTalk 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David E. Evans is Professor of Mathematics at Cardiff University, and H. W. Lloyd Tanner was Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at one of its predecessor institutions, the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire. -- Is it proper not to have the before Professor of ____?
- Other physicists who are Old Members of the college include Michael Woolfson (a former Professor of Physics at the University of York) and Edward Hinds (whose work on ultra-cold matter won him the Rumford Medal of the Royal Society in 2008). -- Why is Old Members capitalized?
- The lead should state a bit more, as to who were the first and most recent alumni of the college under these fields, and as to which field has produced more graduates. Maybe the first part is overkill, but the last part about which field has produced the most is substantial IMO.
- Disagree, I'm afraid. I can't say who the first or most recent notable alumni in each field was, because the list can never be guaranteed to be complete (which is not the same thing as being comprehensive). Nor can I say which field has produced the most graduates, since this would be pure guesswork on my part; the college sources don't say how many have graduated overall in any particular subject. In fact, such figures would be misleading in that, for many years, there was no division of BA subjects and even when Natural Science was introduced, this initially covered all the sciences rather than there being separate degrees such as BA (Physics), BA (Chemistry), BA (Biology) - that only happened later. (And, yes, Oxford historically has awarded BAs for science degrees, with the BSc being a now-defunct postgraduate degree, but that's more off-topic!) BencherliteTalk 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Key
- after name -- is unnecessary since that's only where they are used
- Tables
- I don't know but the question mark entries when sorted under the G column should sort at the top and bottom of the lists.
-
-
- References
- Since some of the acronyms aren't spelled out in the articles, they need to be spelled out here, like the WBO. Also, why is this in italics? As are others.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look just above the references, you'll see a list of works used, including "Welsh Biography Online. The Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion of London and the National Library of Wales. 2007. http://wbo.llgc.org.uk/en/index.html. Cited in references as: WBO". WBO is in italics in every reference because it is the work that is being cited and the "work=" parameter in ((cite web)) and similar templates is automatically italicised. The issue of spelling the abbreviations out in full was raised at this related FLC by User:Dabomb87, and my explanation seems to have satisfied him as the point was not pursued further! BencherliteTalk 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thanks for your helpful review. Some changes made in response to your suggestions, others not for reasons explained. BencherliteTalk 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are stating you can't do it becase the list is incomplete? If not, you can just count how many there are in each category, its not OR.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I suggest you read WP:FL? again? The list doesn't have to be complete, since alumni lists can never be complete (except in narrow cases such as e.g. a list of astronauts to attend a military academy), as it is impossible to prove the negative that no notable person has been left out. Instead, the list has to be comprehensive - see #3: "Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items". I therefore demonstrate comprehensiveness by saying that all of the major items are here, by pointing (once again) to the exhaustion of the following sources for suitable names:
- I cannot think of any more sources where I might reasonably be expected to find additional notable people to add to this list, so it is a comprehensive list, in my view, of alumni in this field from over 400 years of the college's existence. Please reconsider your view. Regards, BencherliteTalk 02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never stated that the incompleteness of the article was an issue. Its not, yes I know the FL criteria, and I know that incompleteness is not a issues; where did you get that from in my comment? All I'm saying is that in the lead it should be noted that which field (from known alumni [which is the list]) has produced the most alumni, which is what is in the table. Its fine though.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... "So you are stating you can't do it becase the list is incomplete?" made me think that completeness was an issue! Glad to hear that it's not. Personally, I don't think that saying in the lead "The list contains eight physicists and six chemists" (etc) adds to the reader's understanding of the list, but if the consensus is that it would help, I will do so. I've added a paragraph about the college science labs (1907–47), which might also be of interest - unfortunately the article doesn't go quite as far as saying "that's why the college produced so many leading scientists in this period... Thanks, BencherliteTalk 21:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|