Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2020
- 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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [4].
- Nominator(s): –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an exhaustive list of all 67 presidents of the NRA and six of the past executive vice presidents of the NRA. All presidents are included, but only executive vice presidents that have a page are also included. The primary list is sortable by year elected to office, last name, and type of occupation a person had, and the specific name of that occupation. Additionally, it is color-coded to represent backgrounds of Activism, Business, Law enforcement, Legal, Military, Nature, Politics, shooting sports, or other general fields. The primary list has 5 high quality images which accompany it, and the article has two images side-by-side depicting the current president and executive vice president. There are a total of three red links on the page and 3,732 words in the article (of which roughly 302 of those words represent readable prose). It's the highest quality list article I have ever created, so therefore I am nominating it for featured list status. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Quick comment: The table looks like a rainbow and does not include any type of symbol, which are needed for color blind people. Also, all caps in the refs need to be removed; MOS:Caps. More comments later. Lirim | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- The all caps issue has now been fixed. I'm not sure how to best address your first comment, though. I would be willing to just axe the colors altogether since the table is already sortable in that regard. I'm open to suggestions there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- The colors are superficial and don't tell me anything that the Background column doesn't tell me already. Should be removed.
- The Ref. Column should be titled {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
- president of the National Rifle Association/Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association do not to be fat text
- Executive Vice Presidents of the NRA should also be in a table like the Presidents of the National Rifle Association
- The pictures are way too large (200px is large enough)
- The lead is too short
- The all caps issue has now been fixed. I'm not sure how to best address your first comment, though. I would be willing to just axe the colors altogether since the table is already sortable in that regard. I'm open to suggestions there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- —Lirim | Talk 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Lirim.Z: I removed the colors, titled the heading {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
(no period), reformed the exec VP list as a table, resized the pictures, and expanded the lead. I have no clue what you meant by "[NRA president/Exec VP of NRA] do not to be fat text" so I left that alone. I think you are referring to the bolded black text? If that is the case, I will state having it bolded is simply my preference, but I will remove it if needed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Edited: 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Lirim.Z: I removed the colors, titled the heading {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
| Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| Hatting sock comments per Revert, block, ignore --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments
VF9 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
|
| Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
:Further comments from me:
|
- Drive-by comments:
- There needs to be consistency in your "background" column. First what do you mean by background? Second, why do you sometimes have U.S. Senator, and other times specify the state (U.S. Senator from Wyoming). What does "activist" mean? It doesn't seem to match the others in this column which appear to be occupations? Some generalships are included in background, sometimes they are not.
- You can use the term Businessperson and link to the article
- First Executive Director of the NRA-ILA is mentioned in a note, but nowhere is ILA defined.
Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: Last two notes are fixed, but to your first point... Well, I wanted to list everyone's day jobs because this is an unpaid position, but not everyone had day jobs. Some people also had like fifty day jobs, and I didn't know what to say for them either. Church, for example, was both a journalist and a soldier (like at the same time). What I did was just approximated to whatever reliable sources said and hoped for the best. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Query
- What's going on with some of the refs? Ref 78 contains refs 76 and 77? Never seen that before............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I'm really... lame because I wanted to keep citations in the table two or under. I therefore bundled the citations. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- When you do that I don't think you are supposed to put ref tags around the citation templates within the refn. See the example edit I just did to Gutermuth's row (fabulous name by the way :-)) - I think it's meant to be done like that.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: apologies, I forgot to check back with this one. Do you plan to amend the "refs within refs" as per the above comment? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I just removed all the bundled refs instead. I might switch out the citation style to a more sleek harvnb thing later, but for now it's not worth the effort just for a prettier table. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @MJL: apologies, I forgot to check back with this one. Do you plan to amend the "refs within refs" as per the above comment? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I made a few small tweaks to the lead and am now OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
*If you're using "NRA" as an acronym it would be best to include it as an aside alongside the first mention of "National Rifle Association" (so "The position of president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a largely symbolic role").
|
- Support. Satisfied with the above comments. GRAPPLE X 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Teratix
[edit]- If, as the title suggests, the list only includes presidents, why does the lead discuss LaPierre, the vice-president?
- Specifying image sizes in px is discouraged per MOS:IMGSIZE, use the upright parameter instead
- There are a few seas of blue links throughout (e.g.
Union general Ambrose Burnside
) position of president of
"of" twice in close succession is jarring to read.the lack of shooting skills of recruits
same herethe newly organized rifle association selected
1) cut "newly organised", it's clear from preceding text 2) Any information on how this selection process worked?famed Union general
WP:PEACOCKto act as its first president
cut "to act"Throughout its history, Presidents
you lowercase the term in this context everywhere else- Outrage porn refers to media, not people
to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation.
One source for this which, while reputable, only covers a single contemporary president.In recent times
MOS:DATED- No need to link Obama
currently chosen by the board of directors
see abovehave gone on to become paid by the NRA
this phrasing is awkwardduring Oliver North's time in office he sought to make the position a paid one
Missing some context here. Why did he fail? Why was this opposed?In total, there have been 65 different presidents of the NRA between 67 separate terms in office
-> "There have been 65 presidents, serving 67 distinct terms." or similar.Those who have held the position include former president Ulysses S. Grant, Harlon Carter, American Football League commissioner Joe Foss, and David Keene.
why highlight these particular people?As of 2019, the current president of the National Rifle Association is Carolyn D. Meadows.
-> "As of 2019, Carolyn D. Meadows is president" or similar- For accessiblity, the table needs:
- Caption (title)
- Row and column scopes
- (See the accessible tables tutorial.)
- Why are the numbers right-aligned?
- No need to link "businessperson", it's a common term. And there's no ambiguity over gender, so just write "businessman"
- Source says Kayne Robinson was only a deputy police chief
- Mustin's tenure needs a dash
- The table is inconsistent on whether the subject's locations should be presented
- All the footnotes should go. The information is either covered (or should be covered) in the lead or best presented in the subjects' articles.
- Anything wrong with the lead image in Oliver North, rather than the noticeably wider one in the list currently?
- May add more comments concerning citations later
Overall, I'm a little uneasy about this list. The prose problems are fixable, but there's a lack of detail concerning seemingly key elements of the position (single sentence on the purposes of the role, single sentence on the selection process, nothing on the duties of the role beyond noting that it's "largely symbolic"). – Teratix ₵ 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- In reverse order (bottom of the list to top):
- Sounds good
- I like variety
- It's a bit too jarring to just have one wide image based on an editor's personal preference. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Image now cropped.
- It's a bit too jarring to just have one wide image based on an editor's personal preference. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Do I really have to remove the footnotes?
- Maybe you could keep [i], but everything else, yes, for the reasons I've outlined. Of course, you can disagree, but best back up your disagreement with reasons. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I got rid of most of them, but I kept footnote C as well. That seems to have been a pretty turbulent time period for the NRA, but I think it would be UNDUE it cover it in the lead. If you still object, I'll get rid of it, but it should probably be examined separately from the others.
- Presidents' resignations seem like just the sort of thing to discuss in the lead. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I got rid of most of them, but I kept footnote C as well. That seems to have been a pretty turbulent time period for the NRA, but I think it would be UNDUE it cover it in the lead. If you still object, I'll get rid of it, but it should probably be examined separately from the others.
- Maybe you could keep [i], but everything else, yes, for the reasons I've outlined. Of course, you can disagree, but best back up your disagreement with reasons. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Originally, I wanted to include a section dedicated to their home states, but I could not get reliable information for each of the presidents in that regard and worried about WP:UNDUE. However, it should now be consistent for every politician and chief law enforcement officer on the list.
- Fixed
- He was also the Chief of Detectives, so I went with that instead.
- Upper or lowercase "chief" and "detectives"? – Teratix ₵ 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Lowercase- fixed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Upper or lowercase "chief" and "detectives"? – Teratix ₵ 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Changed
- Couple still outstanding. – Teratix ₵ 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Got it now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Still unresolved. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Got it now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Couple still outstanding. – Teratix ₵ 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The right-aligned numbers make me happy.
- Not very important, I guess. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Updated
- Might need to double-check this, I don't see any changes on my end. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure what do there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Have a read of the accessible tables tutorial. The list needs a caption and row scopes. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure what do there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Might need to double-check this, I don't see any changes on my end. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done
- Could still be more concise. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Those people are interesting, I guess.
- Not sure this is a suitable criterion. What you and I find interesting may differ. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Still unresolved. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure this is a suitable criterion. What you and I find interesting may differ. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Added content
- Replaced with
Some former presidents have later been employed by the NRA
- de-linked
- used
Since the 1990s
- Added a source about Porter
- Hmm, not sure that says anything about the selection intentionally being for this purpose. It's an exceptional claim, especially when made in Wikipedia's voice. It does certainly seem that way, but I think the sourcing needs to be more explicit. Otherwise, this section may need a rewrite. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- From the article, "The election of James Porter... is one of many defiant signals to come out of the NRA's annual meeting in Houston over the weekend." "Porter... has been building that outrage his whole life." I could look for another source if you like, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Neither of those quotes are an adequate source for the statement that presidents intentionally provoke outrage. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- From the article, "The election of James Porter... is one of many defiant signals to come out of the NRA's annual meeting in Houston over the weekend." "Porter... has been building that outrage his whole life." I could look for another source if you like, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure that says anything about the selection intentionally being for this purpose. It's an exceptional claim, especially when made in Wikipedia's voice. It does certainly seem that way, but I think the sourcing needs to be more explicit. Otherwise, this section may need a rewrite. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- De-linked
- lowercased
- Cut
- Removed "famed "
- Now
the rifle association voted to have Union general
- of --> among
- Removed "position of"
- Hmm, it's a bit ambiguous now (could be referring to the role or the person holding the role). Sorry, it was better before I got to it
– Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's a bit ambiguous now (could be referring to the role or the person holding the role). Sorry, it was better before I got to it
- Restored. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- See above
- Some are still outstanding. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corrected where possible
- He's basically the shadow president of the NRA.
- The list is on the position of president, not the actual leadership, wherever it may lie; that's probably more appropriate in the group's article. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Teratix: I hope that covers 90% of your concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Probably will not support nor oppose this list, as I'm not best placed to evaluate the neutrality and comprehensiveness of certain sections in a page on such a politically-charged group.(will wait and see how changes go – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)) (For future reference, it's easier to follow a featured content discussion if you reply to comments directly underneath where they are posted, as I have done). – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)- @MJL: just checking you've seen my replies. – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Teratix: Hi, yes sorry. I've currently bitten off a bit more than I can chew, so to speak. I will responding to your concerns hopefully in a few days. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's quite all right, take as much time as you need. – Teratix ₵ 09:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Teratix: Updated. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's quite all right, take as much time as you need. – Teratix ₵ 09:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Teratix: Hi, yes sorry. I've currently bitten off a bit more than I can chew, so to speak. I will responding to your concerns hopefully in a few days. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- @MJL: just checking you've seen my replies. – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, at this point I'm going to oppose promotion of this list. My reasons, ordered by severity:
- The lead makes an extraordinary claim in Wikipedia's voice without adequate verification (
presidents have served [the purpose of] ... intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation.
). Additionally, the succeeding sentences discussing presidents' controversial statements give an impression of improper implied synthesis (i.e. discussing presidents' controversial statements to imply that is the purpose of the role, despite no source directly stating this). - The lead does not adequately explain what the position of president entails (criterion 2). It's
largely symbolic
(implying "not entirely") and hasserved purposes ranging from providing the NRA greater legitimacy to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation
... but nothing beyond that (and as per my previous point, even this sentence is problematic). No explanations of their duties (or lack thereof). I hate to say it, but some of VF9's hatted comments hit the nail on the head. The list does not follow the Manual of Style (criterion 5) in several places, notably the accessibility guidelines.
- Given that this nomination has been open for almost five months and still has serious unresolved problems despite a relatively active nominator, I think it needs a break, a clean slate and possibly a rewrite.
- This is my first time opposing an FLC; I may be overreacting? Previous reviewers (@Guerillero, Grapple X, ChrisTheDude, Mattximus, and Lirim.Z:) do you have any thoughts? – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Wayne LaPierr's portrait shouldn't really be at the top because the list isn't about the EVP. Besides that, everything looks good --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: Are you still working on this list? The oppose has sat untouched for a month, and if not addressed I'm going to have to close the nomination. --PresN 17:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @PresN: Oh, yes sorry!
Basically, I wasn't too sure how to respond to In actu besides saying I disagree? I am not aware of any unaddressed accessibility problems, feel that I have described the position of NRA president in the best way that RS citations allow me to do, and do not share In actu's perspective on the possibility of synthesis. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)- (I made the oppose, not In actu/Guerillero). I added a caption to the table, which resolves the accessibility issue. However, there are still an array of unresolved issues, which I have outlined in my previous comments, including the two major problems which have led to my opposition. I welcome efforts from the nominator to resolve them, but just saying "I disagree" without explanation is not sufficient. – Teratix ₵ 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Teratix: I have removed the "intentionally" from the claim. However, both examples come from the Atlantic article, so that can't really be synthesis. That was your most severe point, so I decided to respond to that first.
I am no longer as active as I once was, to be honest.
Idk, if you still want to oppose, but I will respect that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Teratix: I have removed the "intentionally" from the claim. However, both examples come from the Atlantic article, so that can't really be synthesis. That was your most severe point, so I decided to respond to that first.
- (I made the oppose, not In actu/Guerillero). I added a caption to the table, which resolves the accessibility issue. However, there are still an array of unresolved issues, which I have outlined in my previous comments, including the two major problems which have led to my opposition. I welcome efforts from the nominator to resolve them, but just saying "I disagree" without explanation is not sufficient. – Teratix ₵ 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe | ) 18:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC) | |
|---|---|---|
Comments this review will be submitted to WikiCup.
That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Oppose Until above-mentioned comments are disposed. Table needs scope row tags as well. Dog Hole Cave (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC) one purpose account vote removed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: Considering closing this nomination- Opposer still opposes with no further comment made, and no response has been made to TRM's review in 3 weeks. Will close soon if no action is taken. --PresN 02:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @PresN: Sorry for the delay. I recently got a job IRL as a grocery store worker and had real life obligations this weekend. I'll work on it right now. If I don't get it all done, then I'll ask this be closed for expediency-sake. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.