Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Army four-star generals/archive1


 * 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 not promoted 02:25, 1 May 2008.

List of United States Army four-star generals
This is quite honestly the most comprehensive list I have ever seen on the subject. All full generals in the history of the United States Army are listed, with birth and death year, source of commision, date of promotion to 4 star rank, assignments held as a full general with dates, blood relation to other four star officers, relief of commands, and government service, if any, after retirement from the military. It is also extremely well sourced, and a quick look shows only one redlink for the subjects on the list.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Are there no inline citations?
 * I'm not completely sure, but are images required for FLCs?
 * Your lead is a bit short. Maybe at least an explanation of what a four-star general is would be nice.
 * As per the MOS, you need to use a non-breaking space for "compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space". Just for starters, I think you need one right after the first number. You also shouldn't start a sentence with a number ("193 were originally promoted...")
 * Use n-dashs, not hyphens.

Noble Story (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Phew, some list. Could do with having gone to peer review first in my opinion, as there are some clear WP:MOS violations. However, some comments... That's a start, right now, since there's a lot to do here, it's an oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * Please expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
 * Use en-dashes per WP:DASH.
 * Place citations immediately after punctuation where possible per WP:CITE.
 * Any logic behind the table splits or just convenience?
 * "an equivalent rank in a precursor organization" this makes no sense to me (admittedly a non-expert in four star US generals...)
 * " 3 via other sources." - that needs explanation.
 * I'd make the columns for each table the same width so they have a common appearance.
 * Did I miss where you said what * meant?
 * Be consistent with left/right aligns, and the dates could use the dts template.
 * Explain USN, ADM.
 * Institutes of commission need to be expanded before they're abbreviated.
 * Timelines are hugely confusing to non-experts. Acronym-tastic and what do they add?  A preamble to the images would be essential.
 * See also section is in the wrong place.


 * Withdraw nomination
 * At the request of the page creator, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. He would prefer more time to work on it and would like to get a peer review first, which for some reason I bypassed (it was Monday morning, I wasn't thinking straight). What the process is for that, I have no idea...--Nobunaga24 (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.