Talk:List of College of William & Mary alumni/Archive 1

Bad intro and overall organization
The main contributor to this article might not have read the Wikipedia Guide on intros and might not know they are supposed to be short and introduce the actual topic at hand, explaining what the article is about. If he had, he might have learned that the "intro" to this article is really poorly handled. Either this article should be a list or it should be text. (And, it should be a list.) What possible reason is there for including a long list of athletes who attended the college in standard prose in the "intro" before then proceeding to list them all again in the appropriately headed section of the list?

According to Wiki standards, this sort of article needs to have one, perhaps two, paragraphs introducing the content (the list). I'll cut it down myself later. The main contributor ought to check out some other lists like the list of Harvard alumni, justices of the United States Supreme Court, or presidents of the United States to see how this should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.111.26 (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)  Dartmouth's alumni is another good list which does not include any similar fluff at the start and was a featured list.

Response
For anyone in the future who reads the above thoughtful criticism, please see the response left on that IP's talk page which directly addresses each complaint. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is a LIST of notable alumni. It is not an article ABOUT each one.  Why include a whole paragraph about Jon Stewart in the intro?  What does that have to do with the LIST of alumni?  On the other hand, a point like the missing years' graduates have to do with the LIST itself, because it explains gaps in the LIST itself.  And a general summary identifying bigger pictures which someone might not otherwise see when reviewing the list of individual items is fine.  For example, it is fine to point out that WM has had more presidential students than most; that is a point about the LIST of famous alumni which somone might overlook if just reading all of the individual entries.  But what about the paragraph about sports stars?  Your condescending retort did not explain what that tells the reader about the LIST other than pull certain entries out in their entirety and move them to the top.  Are we supposed to go away with the impression that WM has generated more than its fair share of sports figures?


 * Also, your intro was nine paragraphs long. I don't think even the longest articles justify nine paragraphs of intro.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.111.26 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad Organization
This article has a lot of problems with organization. Why are there so many people who served in the UNITED STATES Congress listed in the State and Local section? Shouldn't that be the section for members of state and local government? Otherwise, what distinguishes those people from the ones listed in the Congresspeople listed up above? (To the extent someone served in both a statehouse position and a federal position, it seems he or she should be prioritized and listed in the higher position.)

Also, why is the list of governors not part of the STATE section?

I suspect that these problems were associated with cutting and pasting while constructing the list, but they need to be addressed. I would suggest a hierarcy of FEDERAL notable (Executive (Presidents, Vice Presidents, etc.), Legislative (Senators, Congressmen, etc.), Judicial (Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, District Courts, etc.), Other (Ambassadors, Appointees, etc.)) and then a simpler list of STATE notables (Governors, Statehouse Members (of whatever level), Mayors, Others).

Also, subdividing out Virginia at any specific level does not seem to make much sense. There are certainly more alumni associated with Virginia than other states, but as for this list, that hardly seems the notable characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.111.26 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa
I'm cutting this category from the explanation of the symbols used on table. There are only two listings who are so designated, and both of them are specifically mentioned as having been the co-founders of the organization. Obviously, they were members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.5.138 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Standardization
It looks like this page has seen a lot of additions lately. Because several posters have been making changes, I'm going to suggest some standardizations.


 * Notations about sources of fame should be arranged in chronological order, even if that means that the reason the person made the list is not listed first.
 * Dates of service should be given using the (1734-54) format and not (1734-1754) format
 * If a single person would be included in more than one sub-list, keep the person's full mini-bio in place for each separate entry.
 * Don't include cross-references to other sub-lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfReader (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)