Nobel Prize in science is typically awarded several years or decades after the discovery to make sure it sticks, specially if the scientist is young like Wu was. See Frank Wilczek's Nobel prize in physics awarded in 2004 for the work he did when he was 22 in 1974.
Wu was specifically excluded from the prize in 1957 while her male colleagues got the prize. She devised the experiment that knocked down parity. They won the prize for the idea.
Wait, so by that logic all the male colleagues of every Nobel laureate should have also got a prize? Sounds like you're making a logical claim vs an evidence based one, do you have evidence to proof your claim or is it more like a sounds-like-something-that-would-happen-back-in-the-day-so-why-not-just-go-with-it type of argument?
I don't know what you're on about. It's in the article. The two men that won the prize in 1957 also said she should have shared it with them due to how involved she was.
Oppenheimer and others also said she should have been included.
Read the Fine Article, to bring back a Slashdot-ism.
See also the 1957 Nobel Prize discussed in the article that was awarded the same year as the discovery that overthrew parity because it was so unexpected.
And that Wu designed and conducted and was excluded from the prize.
The turn-around time was a lot faster back then. To wit, Lee and Yang won in 1957; Wu's work was in 1956-57.
Even today, experimental (rather than theoretical) work tends to get recognized a lot faster. For recent examples see LIGO, blue LEDs, graphene, all awarded within a decade.
Wu's results were SO strong and outstanding that THEORISTS won a year later. So the committee obviously trusted Wu's results enough.
