Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)/archive1
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in my long term work on service academy alumni. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added {{main}} at the top because I think it's important to have a visible link to the main list (perhaps you could add one to the other lists?). Is the hat tossing image really the best one to use as the lead image? I realize it shows graduates, but I'm assuming that none of them are actually in the list. Perhaps an image of the campus would work better? -- Scorpion0422 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting a list/article off with "main" simply doesn't set right with me. That's the whole purpose of the template at the bottom linking them all together, plus the template links all together not just the main one. Yes, hat tossing over a school photo as we're mainly dealing with grads here, not the curriculum, buildings, school history, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why do you have the "a" note as a general reference? It's used for George Ritter Burnett only, isn't it? Why is it a "general reference" and not an "inline citation"?
- Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it provides info on all of them, then it should be listed as a general reference with an asterisk next to it. Right now, it looks as if it only provides info on Burnett. This format is very confusing and inconsistent with other WP:FLs. --Crzycheetah 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "b" note is used for everyone, so why can't you have just an asterisk next to the source under "general references" and remove all repetitive "b" notes?
- I could, but there's more than one way to skin a cat ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet in all FLs only one way is used...why should this be any different?--Crzycheetah 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A problem to this solution would be nice. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 23:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet in all FLs only one way is used...why should this be any different?--Crzycheetah 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could, but there's more than one way to skin a cat ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the difference between the source you used as "c" and any source in the "inline citations"? In other words, why is "c" listed in the "general references"?
- Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In short, there's a whole series of these lists and I like to keep them consistent in layout, format, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you have the "a" note as a general reference? It's used for George Ritter Burnett only, isn't it? Why is it a "general reference" and not an "inline citation"?
I apologize if you already answered these questions...--Crzycheetah 06:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response layout is so confusing I had to read it by using the diff. Over the course of the nine FLs I have to my credit, you're the first to complain about this, so I'd like more input. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some links to your previous FLs?Thanks!--Crzycheetah 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Nevermind, I just found some. I see that you were using that way to list your references. OK, let's wait for more input.--Crzycheetah 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response layout is so confusing I had to read it by using the diff. Over the course of the nine FLs I have to my credit, you're the first to complain about this, so I'd like more input. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well I already support the list. I've reviewed and supported several of the other lists in this series, I see no major trauma in keeping them as a series with similar layouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images: I don't have time to do a full image review. But I clicked on a small sample and found no issues. In case no full image review is done, I'm assuming from what I've seen that they are okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hidden category: