Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army)/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 by Dabomb87 04:04, 29 March 2010.

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army)

 * Nominator(s):  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is next in my series of FLs on US service academy alumni. I'd like to note and thank User:Packerfansam for his huge help on this one.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of content in the lead section is not relevant to the stated purpose of the list. Anything that concerns people or practices post-1865, for instance, should be in the article about the Academy itself. (Example: what relevance does the Air Force Academy have to an article about the Union Army?) The first sentence seems like it was copied from another list and modified incompletely. If there is a comparable article about the Confederate Army, you should point to it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hal Jespersen (talk) comments
 * The normal practice in featured lists is to introduce the subject in a general manner to provide context to the reader. See recently promoted lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * UH, that is completely contrary to what you yourself and TRM promoted to FL here: List_of_United_States_Military_Academy_alumni_(Confederate_States_Army) just a few weeks ago. The leads in CSA and the current FLC list are set identical. Can we get some consistency?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops, thought Dabomb wrote both posts there. See User_talk:Dabomb87. My point is that if this setup/style is OK a few weeks ago in the CSA list is FL-able, then it's okay here.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lead of the list tells us more than we need to know about the Academy in modern times (current curriculum, lots of Rhodes scholars, lots of distinguished alumni etc) and disproportionately less about the contents of the list itself, let alone the Academy as it was then. If nobody raised this issue in previous FLCs, that doesn't mean that noone can raise it in this. If improvements could never be made, then all new FLs would still be starting "This is a list of xxx". A few other points that jump out at me before I go to get some lunch:
 * The same lead has been used in several FLs in this series and given one of the FL directors supports it here I'm not going to remove it just because one guy doesn't like it. I'm not saying it can't be improved but largescale changes are unwarranted given this format has made it through several FLCs without major change.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's two reviewers, actually. BencherliteTalk 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Still not a consensus for a major change, certainly not when considering all the reviewers on the other FLs in this series. I don't consider this a valid objection. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not throw out Bencherlite's suggestion entirely, but I can see why Rlevse opposes this change. Let's wait a bit to see what other neutral reviewers say. By the way, I won't be closing this FLC, for the record (as I'm too involved in this already). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the idea that the leads of these spin-off lists should have some discussion on the Civil War or the Union Army. By the way, I'm new to the whole FLC, and I would apply this opinion to all of the other West Point lists --GrapedApe (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must say I also agree with Bencherlite on this point. By the time I'm finished reading the lead, I've forgotten that this list has anything to do with the Civil War. At the very least, the present tense used in the first sentence should be changed to past tense (educated and commissioned officers for the United States Army during the American Civil War).  Jujutacular  T · C 17:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No dab links
 * There aren't supposed to be any<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously, I know that; I was confirming (for the benefit of future reviewers) that this aspect is fine. Why on earth would you think that this was a complaint? Having one reviewer say "no dab links and external links fine" (or whatever) is a standard FLC/FAC thing. Come on. BencherliteTalk 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If nothing's wrong, why mention it? Come on<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bencherlite wasn't trying to mislead you; these days a lot of editors make technical comments at FACs and FLCs regarding the dabs, web links and such, so Bencherlite was just making it clear these things had been checked. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Alt text not checked as no longer part of the criteria
 * External links all functioning, apart from this one
 * Working now, but moot as I made a bettter ref<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * John Blair Smith Todd's class year is missing
 * Fixed type in parameter<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * General reference b has a malformed date
 * Fixed<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 2 is missing a "?" at the end
 * Fixed<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 10 is odd ("3" isn't the title, surely?)
 * Fixed<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly ref 14
 * Fixed<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the reliability of the websources used to give them the all-clear, but this one for instance doesn't strike me as a RS, nor does this one (the website's submission policy is here and doesn't fill me with confidence). BencherliteTalk 13:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replaced both refs with better ones. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Seems to be in line with previous FLCs of USMA alumni. The issues raised about the lead have not been seen as a problem before. Not really sure why this seems to have generated so much consternation for this candidacy. Ahodges7 talk 19:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * GrapedApe (talk) comments
 * Are there any photos of Civil War/Union soldiers during their time as students? That would be better for the lead, rather than the contemporary photo of graduates.
 * This is used in several other USMA FLs, the "hat toss" is a huge tradition at all US military academies, this is the 200th anniv graduation, it's very historical and prob the best hat toss pic I've ever seen, I have to say this image should stay. And no, there are no know group grad/hat toss photos from that era. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I really think a link to the Confederate list would be appropriate, possibly in a "see also" section.
 * It's in the alumni lists in the template at the bottom. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 11:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The talk page has 2 soldiers who are not on the list. I can't see a reason not to include them in the main list.
 * The article states this list is for Union generals and the section heading informs the reader these two weren't generals in the Civil War (MacKenzie became one afterwards). The list is already large and if we included all WP alums who were in the war it'd go way beyond manageable size.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For Sherman, the phrase "treated the demerit system at West Point with disdain, which lowered his class standing from fourth to sixth" is ambiguous. Make it clear somehow that it was his running afoul of the demerit system--not his disdain itself--that caused him to receive demerits.
 * Can of worms. I removed it. It's still in his article. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 11:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For Joseph Hooker, perhaps note how he is known popularly (albeit possibly incorrectly, according to his article) for his name's connection to "hooker"
 * Hmm. Maybe best to leave that out. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. If you ask the layman, like me, "What is General Hooker best known for?" I bet most people, like me, would mention hookers. What about adding "Popular legend connects his name to the term "hooker," slang for a prostitute" to the notability section.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The notability sections for Alexander McDowell McCook and James B. McPherson are pretty long--perhaps trim the things that are named after them?
 * Done. Plus a few others.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For William H. French, the list of battles should be clarified. Did he command soldiers there, or was he just a soldier in them? Actually, this applies to a lot of entries and should be clarified in all.
 * Done. But notating "just a soldier" is not worth it, can be induced from not saying they were a commander. Also, where would you draw the line? Is it worth saying "platoon leader at..."?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the point of not wanted to enumerate all the various positions, but I was still confused. Perhaps something in the lead could clarify that? Actually, for some of these soldiers, is it even worth listing battles where they merely served as infantry? --GrapedApe (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this include all West Point graduates who received Medals of Honor for the Union during the Civil War?
 * Good catch. It does now.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * --GrapedApe (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has yet given me an adequate explanation of why the lead was just fine for so many FLs, up to just 3 weeks ago and now it's so god awful messed up.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is saying the lead was just fine for the other FLs, most of us were not involved with them. I also don't think anyone is saying it's "god awful messed up". I'd welcome you to invite the old reviewers to comment here. Believe me, I don't mind if consensus is against me, all I can say is how I truly feel and why I feel that way.  Jujutacular  T · C 18:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was not fine before there would not be several FLs with the exact same lead. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there another historical alumni featured list besides List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)?  Jujutacular  T · C 18:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the FLC process in the other West Point alumni lists, but I'm just stating my opinion (for what it's worth), that I think the leads of these spin-off lists should include some discussion of the sub-topic. I think we're all just trying to be helpful and to help these lists become as good as possible. --GrapedApe (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.