Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (athletic figures)/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 Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
Another list in the series of West Point alumni. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a short list but it looks good to me.--Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
List is looking good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and questions
- I agree with Killervogel, either use General reference or General because there's only one general reference. I tend to use the latter, but it's simply a stylistic thing between the two.
- Is this done with "External links" when they only have one link too? But Dabomb has now made them all "General" in this topic series. This sort of reminds me of the issues that the date delinking arb case was about, thankfully that case is about to close ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference in the sizes of the two images in the lead is visually disconcerting. I would suggest either increasing the size of the logo slightly or decreasing the graduation picture slightly so they are more equal in size. That, or you could drop one of them, but I think they're both great images.
- I think they're fine. But I've made the smaller one a bit bigger, the same size as the smaller one in the USMA Astros list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on this list is the default sorting by year of graduation rather than name? It makes sense to do it chronologically on the superintendant list (where you are listing the holders of a single office chronologically) or even on the list of medal of honor winners (where again the list is sorted into chronological sections based on the wars where the medals were earned). However, there seems little reason for that sorting here, so it would seem to make more sense to sort in the default method for lists of people generally, that is alphabetically by last name in the first column of the table.
- Consistency in the USMA alum topic. I'm making them as similar as possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and I guess it's moot because of the sortability. Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency in the USMA alum topic. I'm making them as similar as possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a hanging semi-colon in James Hartinger's entry.
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the notability for some entries you lead with information about athletics (Ronald Zinn), and in some you lead with information about their military careers (Doc Blanchard). It's debatable on the grounds of notability, but personally I would begin with their athletics information because that's the topic of the list. I know for some of them they are more notable for their military careers, but readers of this specific list are likely to be most interested in the athletics.
- It can also be argued that since it's a military school the mil info should be first. I've added mil info where it's known on those who had it missing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just looking for internal consistency. Fine now. Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It can also be argued that since it's a military school the mil info should be first. I've added mil info where it's known on those who had it missing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Academy was founded in March 1802 and graduated its first Cadet in October 1802." - in the second paragraph of the lead but repeats information in the first paragraph.
- Cut the dupe in second para. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please include more information in the lead about the athletics program at the Academy. You mention the academic curriculum, but very little about the athletics program. Is athletics an emphasis at the Academy? etc.
- Added a para. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geraldk (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd recommend including John Roosma. He's a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, [2] [3] and Army's basketball MVP award is named after him. [4] Zagalejo^^^ 02:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was Roosma at The Point 5 years? I added him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, exactly. I'll see if I can find more information. Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was Roosma at The Point 5 years? I added him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comment – There are several categories for Army Black Knights athletes and coaches in use here; football players have one, for example. Has an effort been made to check these categories for possible additions to this list? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Nice list overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:18, 11 June 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: