Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni

List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni
I reworked the GT alumni list in a manner similar to List of Dartmouth College alumni. Each entry has a name, a graduation/last attended date, why they are notable, and a reference (formatted with one of the citation templates). I was unable to find references for only two people on the list: Ronald Collé and James Henry Deese. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:21, 10 March 2007


 * Weak oppose Looks pretty good. The fact there's more blue than red links is a plus. A few issues, though:


 * When using Iso format for the date parameter, brackets are needed for the date to be converted. ✅
 * The template call in ref #112 throws up an error ✅
 * Needs images. With that long a list, there are bound to be a couple PD ones. ✅
 * Considering the density of references, I'd consider dropping the extra wikilinks in the references. It creates a sort of "link overload" when combined with the dates. It's only a suggestion though. I have nothing against such links, I'm just not sure they are ideal here.
 * Georgia tech has no reason to be ever linked in the cite pressrelease calls ✅
 * The references with "Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine Online, Georgia Tech Alumni Association" in the "work" field needs to place the "association" as the publisher (or, optionally, drop the association altogether and place the magazine as the publisher)
 * Some headers are classes ("nobel laureates"), but others are topics ("Business", "Military service"), chose one, and stick to it.
 * Circeus 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a couple questions/comments:
 * So, on your first suggestion, the "date" parameter in a reference should be (for example) " |date=2007-03-13 " ?
 * Fixed the error, thanks for pointing that out.
 * How would one best go about integrating images into this list? Do you have any good examples? Perhaps a gallery near the beginning or end of a section? Yes, there are images available.
 * Which wikilinks are considered "extra"? Linking to a publication's article makes sense, at least to me.
 * Is there a specific reference you're referring to? I was fairly consistent with having " |work=Publication Name|publisher=Organization that produces it "; was there an instance where I had a " |work=Publication Name, Organization that produces it "? Or are you suggesting that I simply need either "work" or "publisher" but not both?
 * The Nobel Laureates are notable for something outside of their award, and are doubly categorized, because they're doubly notable. The Rhodes Scholars are only notable because of their scholarship. So, I'm not sure I agree with you on that one.
 * Thanks :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dates the proper format is 2006-03-14 ✅
 * Images I don't think relatively tight (e.g. 100-150px width) would be an inappropriate fit. Loot at List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, for example. The curent list doesn't have to fill the entire strip, though, obviously.
 * Extra wikilinks My thought was that said links being always optional, might be best dropped off here as they only seem to reduce the signal-to-noise ration in the references as they appear right now.
 * georgia alumni mag well... #20, 27, 28, 47, amongst others.
 * Circeus 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, instead of in #20, have  ? Sounds easy enough.
 * If a ref only has the year and the month, or the year and a season (e.g., Fall 2003 or 2002-10), how do you link it, if at all?
 * I was trying to put images into the list, but it doesn't work correctly; the image is placed over the table, instead of the table resizing around the image. How do you fix that? I tried placing specific values in, but it didn't seem to make a difference. ✅ figured that problem out... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dates: Of course you don't. It's simply that since the "date" parameter, unlike "accessdate,"does not automatically wikilink the ISO dates (2005-03-12) to transform them into the full format (March 3, 2005), so when using an ISO date there, it has to be formatted as 2005-03-12 . Does it make more sense now?
 * georgia alumni mag Actually, my beef was that for some reason, sometimes "Georgia Tech Alumni Association" was in italics, other times not. Now I can see the problem is that some times you use cite web and others, cite news (in cite_web, publisher is not italicized). Choose one and stick to it for all references to the same source and it'll all be fine ;-). ✅
 * Circeus 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Used on all of those. IMO, it shouldn't be italicized there, but I think of it more as a news publication than a webpage.
 * Also, I've got the pictures up; it took a while to get them working correctly, but it looks good. Unfortunately/oddly, none of the people listed in "Business" have pictures.
 * —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Image:Georgia-Tech-Insignia.svg needs a fair use rationale. ✅ Also, in the intro you mention that GT is 19th in the giving rate-I think that is a little off topic for this list. ✅ That should be something mentioned on the main GT page. I also have some concerns about this list not being comprehensive. There are only 12 people listed as being notable for football, yet everyone listed here should be on this list, as is done on List of Oregon State University alumni. Also, Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation is linked to under the Nobel Laureates section, it doesn't need to be linked in the See also section at the bottom. ✅ VegaDark 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The sports section can be expanded... That link will be useful, thank you. Should there be a limit to the notability of the sportspeople included on the list, or is it simply a "if they have an article, they're listed" deal? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If they have an article, they should be for sure be listed. If they played professionally in any sport, article or not, they should also be listed.  If that is satisfied about 90-95% of the people that deserve to be on the list will be on there, a good place to check might be GT's athletics hall of fame page for any extras. VegaDark 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I worked on that some, is that what you had in mind? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the size of the athletics section, perhaps it should be split off into a new article? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is looking much more comprehensive. However, now red links become an issue.  As for splitting it off, I don't have a problem with it but others might think it is too large.  The image fair use rationale needs to look like the one at Image:203 chickenlover.gif, it needs to specifically say which article it is being claimed fair use it. VegaDark 06:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the image description page looking better now? Also, I'm not quite sure yet if I want to split off the athletic alumni... although the page has reached a pretty impressive size. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fair use rationale looks good now. The only real issue left for me is the red links, which will take a long time before they are all done, but this would easily meet good article criteria if GA's still accepted lists. I'd renominate once most of the redlinks are gone, unless you want to attempt to make a ton of stubs before this is up. Also, one other thing- Just because someone is in the GT HoF doesn't mean they need to be listed-I was just saying that that is a good place to look for any notable people who might not otherwise have been in the "played professionally" level. I doubt everyone in the GT HoF warrants inclusion, I know Oregon State has many people in the OSU sports HoF that I haven't included in the OSU list, because I don't feel they are notable enough. VegaDark 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out the people w/o articles that were only (AFAIK) notable for being in the GT HOF. How's that? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks very good. I took off my oppose since I don't like to oppose simply based on red links, but I can't support either based on so many red links. VegaDark 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Support, this is good enough regardless of all the redlinks. The redlinks will become blue over time. VegaDark 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support looks all right to me now. I especially like the new lead image.Circeus 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty proud of that image; LaMenta3 happened upon a GT site with a ton of old images, so I've been uploading several of them. It's much more descriptive than the institutes's seal. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm a little worried about redlinks. My rough count puts it at about 280 red to 150 blue, which would normally be just the wrong side of my personal standard (at least two-thirds). But I'll let it go, on the basis that I like the rest of the list and don't care massively about football players. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been going through and writing a few articles on redlinked alumni since you voted, but let me tell you, there are a ton of football players. :p —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Image:Randolph Scott500.jpg, Image:Jim Allchin.jpg, Image:Arad1.jpg, Image:FrankBroyles.jpg don't seem to have any fair use reason to be on this page... gren グレン 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I have to get ready to go to class, but I'll try to get those done today or remove them from the page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I went ahead and commented them out. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support List on the balance looks good, but some minor fixes:
 * Bill Bolton lacks reference and year. If we don't know when he graduated, or even confirm if he did, why is he on the list?
 * Several other entries lack a year? Some of these people look prominent enough to have a public CV or something?
 * The lack of year thing isn't huge, but its absence is somewhat glaring. Other than that, if Bolton can be referenced I would give my full support to this article.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added a reference and a year for Bill Bolton. I admit that I wasn't able to find years for several people. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to full support. Objections have been addressed. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)