Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2011

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:29, 17 January 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all the criteria, maybe except 5b. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - It fails 2 as far as I'm aware, also I feel it could easily fail 3b as its comprehensiveness is a question I could see the award being part of the National Academy of Engineering article. Afro (Talk) 19:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "part". The NAE is a organisation, that awards three prizes for engineering, Russ Prize including.

• On the 3b issue I could easily see all 3 of the lists fitting like this in my Sandbox granted the others could be vastly expanded on. Afro (Talk) 22:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice for you, but it is not lucid and each awards haven't any lead and information. The prizes are all different, Russ Prize is for example awarded to Bioengeneering. So a merging is not really clever. I don't think it is a content-forking list, neither it is a non-stand-alone list. If the Academy Awards awarded every decade per category, would you say the same, only because of less awardees? BTW, there are 5 awards, not 3. I was going to promote all 5 awards to a FLC to get my first FT, but if you think so, I have no other choice to withdraw it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the Leads to the Sandbox to remove the fact neither of the 3 had much information, and its only a 4kb difference at 20kb, which if you pay attention to WP:SIZERULE it says "Length alone does not justify division" and if you pay attention to WP:SIZE it probably would give enough justification to divide up the Academy Awards. Afro (Talk) 12:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It should at the very least include the 2011 winner, [9]. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

updated-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've copy-edited a bit. You must give a reference for the claim that it's one of the prizes known as the "Nobel Prizes of Engineering". Referencing needs to be improved: in the lead, you mention the 2011 winner using this reference which doesn't mention him. I would have thought that there is more to be said about the prize than just the few sentences you currently have – what's said about it by sources other than the NAE, for instance? It's a bit thin at present. Bencherlite^Talk 13:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your CE. I will search for other sources, except NAE, that give more informations about this award. I can include, even if I am not sure if this is allowed because of copyright, some text from the nomination procedure.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think copyright is an issue as long as you don't copy directly from the site.—Chris!_c/t 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about the nomination. Hopefully it doesn't violate anything.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like that the interest is as tiny as the list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Afkatk as I too think that this fails 3(b) of the criteria. The sandbox above shows that a section in the NAE article about the award would work fine; all that version needs is a couple of extra sentences about the history of the award. The nomination procedure, for example, is far too trivial to include either in this list or the main article (frankly, who cares that the application has to be typed, in English, and sent by email or fax with a CV of no more than two pages, etc?) One alternative might be a list giving details of all the prizes (five, you say?) awarded by the NAE, but five short lists is not a good route to 5 FLs and 1 FT. Bencherlite^Talk 11:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I withdraw this list and see what I can do with the NAE article.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:25, 11 January 2011 [10].

Nominator(s): Thecheesykid (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because it is a completed list of all the awards and nominations received by Six Feet Under. It is fully referenced, has an engaging lead, and is comprehensive in it's length. It also has easily navigable list sorts and Nominee templates to ease reading. Thecheesykid (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) That Ol' Cheesy Dude, Talk to the hand![reply]

• Oppose Of the refs, not one is correctly done, and 48 are bare URL's. The scrollbar for refs should be removed per WP:ACEESS. Fix the refs, and I'll read the list. Courcelles 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Many reasons to oppose including Refs which has already been mentioned. Also to add is there a need for 3 Non-free images in the article? Afro (Talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not. Especially given none of the three has a rationale written for this article. Courcelles 23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose First per Courcelles and Afro. Second, the numbers in the lead should probably be written out in prose per WP:ORDINAL. I think the page would look better if the tables widths were even and the drop down nominees section were removed. Is there a reason why the nominees are hidden like that? I've never seen it before, but (on my screen) it seems to be disrupting many of the tables (particularly the Grammy Awards). - JuneGloom Talk 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Don't like the drop-down list. Only one pic is copyrighted, File:David and Keith's wedding (SFU - Everybody's Waiting 5X12).png haven't got any license and the other one is a screenshot, possibly taken from a TV.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:25, 11 January 2011 [11].

Nominator(s): Ahmetyal 14:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I nominated this, in August, but failed. Im trying again. Ahmetyal 14:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - You have a number of blank cells in the "Formal Relations Began" row. The notes you frequently link to other articles and really how notable are articles like Denmark–Italy relations and Denmark – Hungary relations to begin with. The Lead is totally unsourced as well as other items on the list such as Ireland and most of the Middle eastern table. Also the dates in the "Formal Relations Began" row violate WP:DATESNO. Also a lot of the references are formatted incorrectly. Afro (Talk) 05:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose clearly below FL standards. The lead is completely unreferenced, and under the first section, the countries should not be in italics. Many of the relations links use a hyphen instead of an endash, "Disputes – International" should be "International disputes", "Formal Relations Began" should be "Formal relations began" (why should table column heads have caps?). More critically, I also fail to see what this is actually a list of. It lists a lot of countries, with a date relations began and a link to an article. I would expect at least an overview of where Denmark had embassies and consulates, and who had embassies in Denmark. It seems that embassies have been left out for countries in Europe, but included other places. The list is also incomplete, as many began dates are lacking. It is not appropriate to have many smaller tables, each for a continent or region, this makes it for instance impossible to sort the entire list by date. I don't understand how sorting the notes column is going to help the reader, and it looks weired with bullet points within the table. Some of the see also links are in the lead and/or the navbox. Many of the references are insufficiently/incorrectly formatted. There is a link that points back to the article and there is a dead link. Personally I would start from scratch and write an article, rather than a list, about the foreign relations of Denmark. The first section looks at various disputes; there have been many through the years, and I would expect this article to, among other things give an overview of all major issues, and overview of the foreign affairs services of Denmark, and overview of missions to Denmark (though not necessarily a complete list). The article should also look at international membership, such as EU, NATO, the Nordic Council, etc. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for reasons that may overlap above:

• Unsourced claims in lead.
• Unsourced claims in "International disputes" section.
• Odd use of ISO dates in the table, why not human-readable?
• Notes seem to be just links out to other articles or dates of embassies (and I'd surprised that you don't include the embassy information for many countries if you do for, say, Austria).
• No clue as to why "Formal relations began" col may have entries with multiple dates.
• Some blank cells in that same column are unexplained.
• Costa Rica is out of initial order.
• Cols should be the same width from section to section.
• "Denmark-Thailand relations" hyphen - all the others have been spaced or unspaced en-dashes.
• References need full formatting.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very impressive list, but still lacking a bit:

• The disputes section could use a bit of expansion since it is the most controversial part of the article. Also, I added a few citation needed tags there.
• Turkey being in Europe needs a citation.
• US does not have an embassy?
• The Iraq entry is a bit thin.
• How is Both countries are full members of the Union for the Mediterranean. relevant to Israel but not to the other 30 members?
• Jordan and many of the Middle East states?
• I would like to have a map of all the states that have embassies in Denmark, and Denmark has embassies there.

Nergaal (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on the notes, and when i'm done, the date and international disputes section will be improved. Ahmetyal(talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:25, 11 January 2011 [12].

Nominator(s): Dylan620 ^{(t • c)}, Iune(talk), 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completing a job started by User:Iune (with whom nomination credit is shared) back in August 2009; added sources, made tidy-ups to comply with modern TC season timeline standards, etc. Special thanks to User:Jason Rees for copyediting after the main body of cleanup efforts. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Comments - All the refs need to follow the same date format. You don't source 2 items, in July 4 and July 28, any reason why these aren't source? Afro (Talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. The two missing citations were accidentally overlooked. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All references should follow the same date format. Afro (Talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, misunderstood the first comment. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no issues with the article but as other editors seem to have extended issues with some of the content, I'm neutral until their problems are resolved. Afro (Nice Beaver) 02:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on principle. It is a content fork of 2004 Pacific hurricane season.
  • If it's a content fork because it's a timeline, then wouldn't all the featured timelines also be forks? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I maintain my oppose, as I don't feel it exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. It is essentially the same content as the 2004 Pacific hurricane season article, just in a slightly different format. Specifically, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SIGCOV. There is a potential issue on significant independent sources, given that all sources in the article (but #3) stem from the warning center. If you look at this list on its own (and not even comparing it to others), is the timeline of the 2004 PHS actually notable? In my opinion, it is definitely not. The season was below-average, and there was nothing special about its timeline. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• With the above issue notwithstanding, I have other concerns.
  • "Tropical Storm Agatha reaches its 1-minute peak sustained windspeeds of 60 mph (90 km/h)" - first, the grammar is poor. "Agatha reaches its windspeeds" is how it basically reads. Also, that is the only place in the article where you mention anything about minutes, so it has no context. Finally, 60 mph is not 90 km/h, that is incorrectly converted. Please fix all conversions in the article, if the article is even to stay.
    • Removed mention of minutes. My argument for that conversion staying is that 60 mph is a rounded estimate of the conversion from 50 knots, which converts into 90 km/h. If that's an insufficient argument, however, I would be glad to fix that conversion. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, 50 knots is 57.5 mph, which is 92.9 km/h, which is rounded to 95 km/h. Please be more careful. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hurricane Darby intensifies into a Category 3 major hurricane and becomes the first Pacific major hurricane since Hurricane Kenna (2002)" - try rewording so the year isn't in parenthesis
  • Strange, I thought parentheses weren't there to begin with... oh well, fixed anyway. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Several of the storms don't have a location where they attained peak winds.
  • I don't remember this being consensus; could you please direct me to such a discussion that declared so? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does there have to be a consensus? It doesn't do anything if a long-lived storm has a location where it formed, and there is no indication where it moved and where it peaked. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted, and added. (Note: the diff contains many other fixes as well.) --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • • I see you added lat/lon to several storms - that helps no one. You should say where the storm was in relation to some major city. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's only possible with Isis (1,260 nautical miles west Cabo San Lucas) and Javier (270 nautical miles south-southwest of Manzanillo), unless you want me to use the best tracks to give generic statements such as "south of Cabo San Lucas" or "offshore Mexico" without saying how far away in those directions. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I should add that you don't need to have peak intensity locations for every system, particularly when they are short-lived or don't move much. It's just that for the storms that last a few days, there is no indication where the storm went or what it did. Part of that is the reason I dislike the timeline articles, as they just repeat what is done in the storm section but with less information. But, if this were to stay, it should be deserving of its FL star. I think I'm mostly looking for locations of the peak for Javier, Isis, and Howard. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think this edit did the trick. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nope. "Tropical Depression Three-E forms at 14.6°N, 105.5°W." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Blas' TCR didn't give the formation of the storm in relation to any major city; the lat-long coordinates were all I could find in that case. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--**You do realize there is such a thing as a latitude/longitude calculator, right? Just plop in the city's and storm's coordinates. For whenever the distance is needed, you always have the option of putting a location in. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the relative location to Manzanillo, with a footnote (though that likely needs to be copyedited). --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an inconsistency between using miles and nautical miles - why?
  • Because there's also inconsistency between that information in sources. For instance, Blas' TCR doesn't use either for where it formed, so I had to use latitude and longitude. Also, the report on One-C gives the information in miles. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do know that nautical miles and miles can be easily converted, right? The project agreed that nautical miles shouldn't be used. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not fixed. Check again. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • D'oh! Sorry, now it's fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure about that? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Tropical Depression Eight-E becomes a tropical storm and is named Frank, one of the few times a storm has survived crossing from the Atlantic to the Pacific" - it didn't though
  • Maybe I'm interpreting incorrectly, but both the AMS annual summary and Frank's TCR say so. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Earl didn't actually survive crossing from Atlantic to the Pacific. It dissipated, and the wave crossed. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Tropical Depression Ten-E forms about 525 nautical miles (972 km)" - why is it not rounded?
  • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not think this article is a content fork. They are slightly different. This has recently been a hot topic at WP:TROP and has added on to the drama issues there. Even so, any further discussion goes at WP:AFD. Once Hinks comments are addressed, ill support but for now I am neutral. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• No need for two links of each hurricane center in the lead. One apiece will do just fine.
  • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The last See also link needs a dash in 2004-05. Oddly enough, an en dash is present in the link itself, just not in the piping. The 2003–04 link is exactly the opposite. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed (I think?) --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:25, 11 January 2011 [13].

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this lists meets the FL criteria. --TIAYN (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed this nomination as it contradicted the FLC instruction "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of leaders of the Soviet Union/archive2 had no such consensus at the time and had only been open 2 days). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My other nominee has received support.. --TIAYN (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comments:
  • Done Soviet Union not linked in introduction.
  • Done "Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (1917–1946)" yet the first person listed took office in 1922. I understand the USSR was only formed in 1922, but some mention needs to be made about the 1917 bit.
  • Done The table makes no explanation of the extra cell below the term of office; I had to find one with a link to discover it meant the election.
  • I see no reason to include their birth/death dates. If people want to know, they can click through.

You are not suppose to need to click through when you read this article! It is staying. --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to need to click through for information not relevant to the list. Lifespans, hometowns, professions, etc. are not relevant to a list of office holders. --Golbez (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done The coloring also seems superfluous, since they were all the same, and party affiliation is only sparsely mentioned.
  • Done No reason for the dates to be small and separated from the years.
  • Done I'm guessing there was no method of automatic succession? Explaining why there was a delay between Lenin's death on January 21 and Rykov's succession on February 2.
  • Done Does not mention the ones that died in office.
    • Only one did, and that was Stalin. --TIAYN (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lenin? --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ment Lenin and Stalin, sorry for that one.. even so, it is already mentioned by including the birth death years. --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. If someone died in November 1924 but left office in February 1924, it would say they died in 1924, and you wouldn't know if they died in office. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Another date discrepancy: Stalin died on March 5 but his successor did not take office until March 6

No specific reasons. --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done Khruschchev left office on October 14, 1964, and his successor Kosygin took office ... eight months earlier?
  • Done Pavlov left office August 22, Silayev took office September 6?
    • Pavlov supported the August Coup of 1991, in its aftermath Gorbachev had a hard time finding his replacement. --TIAYN (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done A direct link to the relevant Soviet constitution(s) is needed in the references.

It is? --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done The introduction only mentions the 1977 constitution; you need to go in to how the previous constitutions and positions were handled.
    • No difference between, the exception is that the organisation the Premier headed was named something else. --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are two different pictures of Stalin used?
    • One for him in the 1930s (commissars) and 1940s (ministers). --TIAYN (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "Chairmens"
• That's all I see in a 5 minute skim. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Inconsistency with the date formats in the references (Ref 1 and 2 use D M Y. Ref 14, 16 use M D, Y). the dates violate MOS:TEXT as far as I'm aware in other words the small html tag shouldn't be used. Afro (Talk) 15:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In order for this to not be WP:CFORK, the "List of" should be dropped from the title and a section on the powers/role of the PM should be added (i.e. the list should cover the entire topic on Soviet PMs). Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna make a seperate article for powers, function and duties of the Premier. It's not WP:CFORK because it's a very notable topic and should have its own article. --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now This is similar to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners/archive1 and other similar failed recent lists. A main article should be created first and only then content should be split if the main article is large enough (which in this case I am pretty sure it won't be the case). Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't it be big enough? I have access to all the Soviet constitutions and constitutional amendments, so there is no reason for it not becoming big enough. This is pure ignorance WP:POV. The only thing i need to do is to merge the Council of People's Commissars, Council of Ministers (Soviet Union) and the Cabinet of Ministers of the USSR in the Premier article, you know that right? --TIAYN (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, we don't even need to create a seperate article "Premier", seeing that all the power, functions, and responsibilities are discussed in the three mentioned articles above. --TIAYN (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you are right about those> Nevertheless, I started taking a closer look and I don't think this is ready. The list talks about premiers, but in the table there are four different titles. The intro does not go through this to explain the differences/transitions. The prose it quite weak also: There have been thirteen premiers. Thirteen individuals have been Premiers of the Soviet Union, two of the seventeen premiers. Also, the intro starts with the '77 constitution... but the list starts at 1920. I would suggest working on the intro significantly more. Also, there are only two distinct references in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've explained further. I will get another editor to copyedit the article if the article in dire need of it. --TIAYN (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now. Still, I would prefer a separate expanded summary section like in List of leaders of the Soviet Union before I support this. Nergaal (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference in the layout. In this list all premier's have their own short summary of their tenure in the "wikitable". In the List of leaders of the Soviet Union I didn't have enough space in the table to write short summaries of the leaders, and their leadership, in the table. That's why I created the summary section. This list, however, has summaries for the respective premiers in the table. There is simply no need. --TIAYN (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would prefer the first paragraph to briefly tell me what the Premier is, not how they left office. Reywas92^Talk 17:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. --TIAYN (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TIAYN (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:25, 11 January 2011 [14].

Nominator(s): Jweiss11 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's an excellent, well formatted and sourced list. Its structure differs, but may be superior in some ways, to similar featured lists such as List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFC:

• The prose below the table is a good addition, and really enhances the list IMO. Nonetheless, the lead needs to be longer, so as to provide a summary of the rest of the list.
• Don't really see the point of the "#" column; it's redundant to the date column.
• Schembechler's profile is noticeably short.
• I had to remove the unsourced Rodriguez info per BLP policy. If the material can be reliably sourced, it might be worthy of re-inclusion, although beware of making that section disproportionately large.
• Ninety years of Hall of Fame inductees is in a somewhat random place.
• It's not obvious at a glance, what is sourcing the table itself? I'm not suggesting that everything in the table needs inline citation, but I can't see any referencing in the Coaches section.

The above points notwithstanding, this does look promising. —WFC— 15:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• WFC makes good points, and I won't review the list in detail quite yet.
• My instinct is that instead of 18 sub-sections "profiling" the coaches, these should be incorporated into a lead section, and I would look at List of Manchester City F.C. managers for inspiration.
• I'm not sure I need the statistical lead section as I can sort the table for myself. Is there anything there which isn't in the list?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Ref 51, 52 don't use {{Cite web}}. also you overuse align=center in the table coding, it'd be better to add style="text-align:center" in the table head. Bit confused also as to why there were no coaches from 1879-1890, a note wouldn't hurt. Afro (Talk) 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the refs that weren't using a citation template. Looks like it was actually #50 and #51. I also fixed the style="text-align:center issue. This looks like code that was pulled over from featured lists of the same type like the List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. I suppose those should all be updated. I'm going to work on something regarding a note for no coaches before 1891. This was typical of college football teams in the early days before the 1890s. I think the explanation is something along the lines that football in those days was more of an ad hoc student activity as opposed to a fully sanctioned and budgeted university program. Many coaches in the late 1800s and early 1900s were unpaid, often students or recent graduates who had, perhaps, played on the team the year before. The editor who created this list (User:Cbl62) has done a ton of research on this era of football and can probably explain this best. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of professional football coaches did not gain wide traction until after 1900. In writings from that time, it appears that the notion was frowned upon as something inconsistent with the nature of collegiate sports. In the early days, teams did select a captain and there was also a student manager. It appears that the captain and manager performed many of the functions (including developing game strategy and arranging for practice sessions) that would later be considered "coaching" duties, but historical sources do not treat captains and managers as being equivalent to coaches. Cbl62 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This type of information needs to be made available somewhere in the article for the average reader who might stumble across this. Afro (Talk)

• Oppose - I'm going to oppose as no progress has been made to address any problems within this article, almost seems that the nominator is just content on updating the list. Afro (Talk) 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just made a little progress and will keep at it! Jweiss11 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll strike it until further notice. Afro (Talk) 10:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – As far as I can tell, the table isn't being cited by anything. Is the external link meant to be a general reference for the table? If so, you'd be better off to format it as such. If the references used in the prose section are meant to also cite the table, it would be wise to include them there in a seperate Ref. row. In addition, I think the lead should be longer than it currently is, especially for a list of this length. I was looking forward to reading the profiles of the coaches (unique for lists of this type), but until these basics issues are resolved I don't feel comfortable reviewing further either. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a general reference for the table in line with what has been done for List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to weak oppose for now. While I'm happy to see that the table now has a general reference, the size of the lead still concerns me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why we want a big lead for lists. The meat and potatoes of these list articles are the tables, aren't they? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the criteria for FLs is that lists should have "an engaging lead", and I'm not sure a five-line lead can be said to be that engaging. Just look at the lead for the Sooners list you linked at the top. It's not a huge lead, but it serves its purpose as a nice introduction. That list and the other similar featured coach lists (of which there are many in the various sports) are good models for what to place in the lead. Perhaps some basic details from the coach summaries, such as national championship-winning coaches, could be added. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've expanded the lead. How's it look now? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better. I've striken the oppose above until I can return and offer a more thorough review. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't fully reviewed my original comments but one of my suggestions remain, that you take this list and treat it more like a good article with a featured list framework like the List of Manchester City F.C. managers. This list is currently not quite what I'd expect to see as our "finest work". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs to employ the {{fix bunching}} templates.
• You might want to link team season articles in the WP:CAPTIONs.
• You should reformat the Statistical leaders section in two or three columns. Try the {{Div col}} template.

done, reformatted into two columns Jweiss11 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can not support an article with a lot of one line sections. They will need to be expanded or the article will have to be reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the coach profiles, the part about Frank Crawford coaching at three other schools and the last couple sentences of William McCauley's summary appear uncited as well.

Citations added for Crawford coaching at others schools. Citation for McCauley moved; can also cover loss to Harvard. Still need a citation for "the 1895 Wolverines laid claim to Michigan's first Western football championship." Jweiss11 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gustave Ferbert: Typo hidden in "The 1898 team coached by Ferbert finished with a perfrect 10–0 record...".

done, typo fixed Jweiss11 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry G. Kipke: "the Wolverines finished in an eighth place tie in Big Ten...". Add "the" before conference name?

done, missing word added Jweiss11 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bennie Oosterbaan: Missing word in "Crisler retired as head coach after the 1947 to become...".

done, missing word added Jweiss11 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The bit about him coaching other Michigan teams needs a citation.

done, relevant citation pulled from article on Oosterbaan and added Jweiss11 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The general reference should be bulleted.

done Jweiss11 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All the reference publisher that are newspapers should be italicized; right now several aren't. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done Jweiss11 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Have all previous reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given Rich Rodriguez's firing today, this article could be a little unstable for a bit. Things should settle down when a new coach is named. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you withdraw the nomination until such a time that we know what's going on? You will be more than welcome to renominate once the list is updated to reflect current affairs, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:33, 9 January 2011 [15].

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this discography for the second time, after I took an intensive clean-up. It will be the first discography that could be a FL by a mexian artist and the first in the portal. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm sorry, but there are still many basic issues with this article. If they are addressed I am very willing to reconsider, I'm fair don't worry.

• Numbers in the lead are supposed to be spelled out, you have them in numerical form.
  • Think it's ok now.
• Your confusing RIAA shipments with sales
  • Is it k now?
• Only countries that are listed in the columns are supposed to be introduced or mentioned in the body or certifications. It adds unnecessary bulk. We know Supernatural was very successful.
  • done
• Allot of the certifications are wrong. I don't see any 4x Platinum in France.
  • It's because I was confused with the french site. I firstly thought I should sum all certs. Done.
• The lead could use better writing.
  • Hope its k now.
• Allot of the sources are missing "works" and/or "publishers", allot of them.
  • I only found one, the santana official site, with not publisher. What do you exactly mean? I replaced "work" with "publisher", think you meant this.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• --AlastorMoody (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments but giving an oppose was a little bit too strict ^^.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This is Santana's (the band) discography, not Carlos Santana's discography.. Create a separate article for the Carlos Santana discography page. --TIAYN (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Brianboulton requested a merge proposal, which took place here. So your oppose is false. And I also marked Santanas (a band with one definite member (Carlos Santana) and members see here) album and Carlos Santana (just a few) albums. I think you didn't watch more intensive.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do agree with him to an extent, as for the the Merge proposal there doesn't seem to be much of a discussion and a lack of consensus regarding the subject. Afro (Nice Beaver) 02:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't split off this disco into two. The Carlos Santana disco will be very, very short and not really necessery. And as I said, Carlos Santana's albums are actually the same as Santana's album, because only Carlos Santana was a constitutive member in the band and the band's members were non-session musicians. But albums marked with Carlos Santana are albums within the band, but other musicians (not session members, sorry made a mistake above) like John McLaughlin. You can compare this with Nine Inch Nails, a band with varying members again and again, except Trent Reznor certainly. And if I didn't convinced you, then I have to split this list into two lists, whereby one is a joke-list and huge non-sense and the other a good one. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article qualifies for FL because it includes uneeded information. Second, Carlos Santana has released ten music records, and has probably released some singles for his unsuccessful albums. There seems to be no reason not to create another article! There are ten items, her + some possible singles which are missing. A seperate article would meet the unofficial requirement for a list. --TIAYN (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither singles nor albums are missing here. A separation is useless per above and below.

• Carlos Santana released no singles himself, but only 7 studio and 3 live albums.
• Neither of them, except Love Devotino Surrender, received certs.
• The band is full of session members, are not constant members
• Most of the certs and sales publisher don't find any differences between him and the band, so as the books mentioned in the merge proposal.
• As a solo-artist, half of the albums he collaborated with other musicians:
  • Love Devotion Surrender': With John McLaughlin
  • Illuminations': with Alice Coltrane
  • Oneness: alone (as Devadip Carlos Santana)
  • Swing of Delight: alon (as " )
  • Havanna Moon: alone
  • Blues for Salvador: alone
  • Santana Brothers: with his nephew and brother
  • Carlos Santana & Buddy Miles: with Buddy Miles
  • Carlos Santana Live: alone
  • Carlos Santana and Wayne Shorter: with Wayne Shorter

So thats 5/5; because he didn't released singles as a solo-artist and only with the band, the split lost, so no need to separate it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok an alternative: I will split this disco into two discos off. If this will pass the FLC, I will propose a merger. Agreed?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to webpage Allmusic Carlos Santana has released three compilation albums and two video albums under his name, this means he has released a total of 13 records + 2 video albums = 15 releases. Even if he collaborates with other artists it doesn't make it less his! What you are saying about Santana might be true, but it is another entity than Carlos Santana's solo work. --TIAYN (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's a bit beyond my expertise to vote on whether this should be a Featured List, but I can point out that the OPPOSE vote from TIAYN above is a procedural error and therefore illegitimate. As others have discussed, separate discogs for Santana vs. Carlos Santana are not viable and it makes logical sense to have one comprehensive discog. Since that already exists as the item in the present discussion, TIAYN should vote on whether or not the existing article qualifies as an FL, which should be a decision based on article quality. A split proposal is a different process. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced link. I don't know if this should be split from each other, too.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC) This took place here and forgot to change. I hope it is k so.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think the stars need to be sourced in the Singles table. Also the language in the language parameters should have capital letters. Afro (Talk) 06:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• by looking at this Template:Note, I will do that in several minutes. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position regarding the list, I shall remain neutral until the present issues presented by other editors are resolved. Afro (Talk) 15:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has AlastorMoody been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recently looked at his contribs; his last edit was 12 December... I don't think he will come today, but maybe in a few weeks.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is useless to wait one or more weeks until he will address his comments. Therefore I decided to wait till tomorrow, 20.15 P.M. If I see that he didn't address, then I have to withdraw this nomination. Yes, it is sad, but I have no alternative.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still comments which haven't been addressed from TIAYN regarding the split of this page, its not just AlistorMoody. Afro (Talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:27, 9 January 2011 [16].

Nominator(s): Happyman22 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list for feature status because it is one of the few remaining Draft Pick lists in the NFL that has not reached feature status. Other lists such as List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, List of Minnesota Vikings first-round draft picks, List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks, etc. have reached feature list status and in my opinion meet the same criteria as this list. Let me know what everyone thinks! Thanks! Happyman22 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - The general references have no publisher and neither does Ref 5-9, 12-18, 20 and 21. Ref 19 and 22 appear to be dead. For consistency the dates in Ref 1, 2, 10, 11, 24 should be in the same format as the others. Note u is unreferenced, and the last line of Note v seem to be unreferenced. Afro (Talk) 01:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the rule is one FLC at a time, so this one or the other would have to be removed for a couple weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:40, 7 January 2011 [17].

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... West Point's class of 1915 was so sucessful they gave it a name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

• Not sure about the capitalisation (or lack of) in the title. Doesn't seem consistent with the sources.
  • Per the MOS, the initial word only is capitalized. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well presumably if this is commonly referred to with capitals, then WP:COMMONNAME comes into play? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMONNAME refers to the wording of teh title, not the capitalization. If we decide that the nickname qualifies as a proper noun, then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states that capitalization would be appropriate. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it seems to be capitalised in the majority of the sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This list appears to be incomplete, with only the Generals of the class the stars fell on listed.
  • Yes. The others could be listed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either they should or shouldn't and some explanation as to why they're not provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest not attempting to list them. The referencing would be a nightmare, and the notability of the Class of 1915 is the generals, not the remaining officers. I don't think the list would be worse off for not having thier names listed. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per my earlier comment, then reasoning and explanation should be given as to why this isn't the "class the stars fell on" it's a subset of the class. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead is a little short.
• I would prefer one large table with the ranks added in as a column, and then the whole thing made sortable. This would also have the benefit of consistent column widths as you'd only have one table, and the images currently squashing just the first three tables would squash the whole new table consistently.
  • It would have some serious drawbacks though. We'd lose the photographs, and the sort would have to be on a hidden field. But most importantly, we would have to change the mem template, and I'm not going to do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would avoid using the template, this list can easily and happily standalone without reference to a template. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I can't see what template you're referring to. There's no "mem" template as far as I can see. You're just using a bunch of individual tables, so merging should be trivial. You wouldn't lose the photos, sorting should use regular sorting templates, some may be hidden, but there's no problem with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to a new version that does that. Figured out how to sort on a hidden field. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The images are portraits so could use the upright parameter.
  • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason why Vernon Evans is not linked at all in that sea of red links in the Major Generals section?
  • Yes. There is another, more famous, Vernon Evans, who already has a page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So create a page which is disambiguated from the extant Vernon Evans... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2 (which is a reference) is a deadlink.
  • Links change over time. Corrected this one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 13 has no publisher information.
  • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 79 is a deadlink for me.
  • Hmmm dead link. Fortunately, it has an access date on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but it can't be used to verify what it's being used to verify. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was an obituary notice. It was used to verify the date "1951" which of course was not in Callum (1950). I'm sure I can find it somewhere else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Second general ref needs an en-dash for the year range in its title.
• What direct relevance do the "papers of..." have to this list (in the External links section)?
  • Deleted section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I too would prefer just one table, sortable by name and rank. It would mean an extra column, but you could perhaps lose the "references" column, adding the citations to the previous ("notability") column, which allow more space.
  • No, it would mean a lot more than that. You would need to change the standard template. This would affect many other articles. It was adopted after a discussion. Another discussion would be required to change it. It is used by a number of other featured lists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The opening sentence could be a little clearer for people not familiar with the topic. I found the list interesting, but on initially reading the first sentence, I was none the wiser as to what it was all about. "West Point class of 1915" doesn't mean much to me. It would perhaps be clearer to spell out United States Military Academy at West Point, and explain a bit about what it is.
• The lead could be expanded. Is it known where the expression originated (as in, who started using it)?
• I'm not sure about the column heading "Notability". It's a bit of a Wikipedia buzzword, but I'm not sure it works well here. Perhaps it would be better as "notes" or "details" or "career details" or something.
• I'm not sure that the external links included are that relevant. They would be better on the article page for each individual (if there is one).
  • Removed external refs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I'm not sure there are any affected dates in the article, it's unclear why {{Use dmy dates}} is used. Is that correct for this article?
  • Yes, articles on the US Military use this form, as per WP:STRONGNAT Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that is odd since that very link suggests articles with strong US ties should use mdy dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean the bit where it says: Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yeah, that bit'! Live and learn. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "...the most of any class in the history of the United States Military Academy..." - needs a citation
  • Citation added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• More images? There are other PD images available that could be used in the list.
  • Added one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--BelovedFreak 15:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lead is way too short. It could contain more about the teachers or the specific training that they had to go through. It could have a bit more detail on the career of the most successful members. It could talk about the rest of the top of the class not included here (i.e. #2 and #3: what happened to them?). Nergaal (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'll oppose solely on the lead as it doesn't cover the subject to the extent I think it should be covered to. Afro (Talk) 10:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• Now I see rank has been changed into a load of graphics which are unexplained and meaningless to a non-expert.
  • But they are explained in the text at the top. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If you insist on separate tables for the rank, then why have rank as sortable?
  • So I can merge them later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In Firefox, the first image now appears on top of the right-hand side of the table.
  • Strange.. I looks good on that browser on my machine. Obviously an artefact of the loss of the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if the column you say "Notability" should be called that. Perhaps just Notes, because it shouldn't be down to you to decide what makes these individuals "notable".
  • Changed to "Notes" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The images now used to represent the ranks are not only confusing to a non-expert, they're also a bit of an accessibility issue. For example, with images turned off, one of the ranks reads "US-O9 insignia.svg".BelovedFreak 15:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is explained in the article. Alt text added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lots of folks have mentioned the lead being insufficient, and I agree. If you can find any references about the promotion rate of other classes to compare, that would be a good way to fill it out. You could also reference the attrition rate for the class as well (i.e. how many didn't make it), or if anything else was unique about the class (maybe the training schedule as WWI ramped up?).
• The alt text seems a bit thin, and could be more descriptive. A good example would be List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War (I think Kumioko went a bit overboard, but trending in that direction would be good).
• Per Rambling Man and BelovedFreak, the graphics-only rank column is a bit unclear to some readers. I would prefer to see the actual names of the ranks (i.e. Lieutenant general) with the image. If the text isn't included, then the alt text for the rank insignia should definately be changed to the name of the rank, because "x-star" is unclear and informal.
• Redlinks vs. unlinked: you will want to be consistant, one way or the other. I'd suggest removing the redlinks for individuals whose biographies aren't likely to be created by the close of the FLC; but the best solution would be to find more refs and make a bunch of articles (even if most of them wound up being stubs).
• In the Notes section, sometimes the wording doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For example, Omar Bradley's states "Commanded 82nd Infantry Division (1942), 28th Infantry Division (1942), II Corps (1943), First Army (1944), Twelfth Army Group (1944–1945) Chief of Staff of the United States Army (1948–1949), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1949–1953)"... but you don't command being the Chief of Staff or Chairman. I'd clarify it to "Commanded 82nd Infantry Division (1942), 28th Infantry Division (1942), II Corps (1943), First Army (1944), Twelfth Army Group (1944–1945), and served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army (1948–1949), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1949–1953)" [bold added for illustration]. I'd also be interested to see notes about any that had post-military notability (like politicians or astronauts or something), and if any were killed in action (since most saw combat in WWII and Korea, and probably some in WWI that never made general).
• You lean very heavily on two sources. Nothing really wrong with that, and I would certainly never oppose for that, but I like to see a greater variety of references. You could try stealing borrowing references from the biography articles for those individuals that have them.

At a minimum, I'd have to see the lead expanded before I could support. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this nomination still active? The article hasn't been modified since 23 December. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been working on it, but the amount of work required is very large. I think it would be best to withdraw the nomination and re-nominate it in a few months time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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