Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)/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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009.

List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)

 * Nominator(s):  — Rlevse • Talk  • 

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who were awarded the Medal of Honor. It is hopefully the last in a set of five lists of USNA alumni. All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- The lead looks fine, but I was going through the notes and I noticed many errors (some I have fixed) but I recommend seeking a copyedit of the notes. In addition, are some of these notes actual quotes from the sources because using "courage" without quotes is WP:POV, if it is a quote, please use quotation marks. --Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed "courage and leadership" to actions, will ask Julian to ce. — Rlevse • Talk  • 09:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read through the list, and admitted I could find nothing to change. Could you please provide examples of said errors? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it was done? Or I must be smoking. Support -- meets WP:WIAFL standards.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter seems more likely. ;) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support looks good— Chris!  c t 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Meets the criteria as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Images look good.  Rambo's   Revenge   (How am I doing?)   11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

General rant directed at no one: This is directed at a general situation, not at any person. I've also seen this trend at other Featured Candidate pages. Why do we have to reverify an image's PD status because of something like links changing? If it was PD, it's always PD. It does not lose that legal status because some website dropped off the net and User:JoeBlow can't find it anymore. But as it is, there is a trend to say "I can't find it, so you have to prove it even though we all know it was PD". Here I'm talking cases like it was sourced to a known PD site or even just trusting the uploader didn't invent a URL, but no, we say "the guy could have been faking a URL, so prove it again, to me". This is all unnecessary and avoidable by using a method that is used on Commons where trusted users verify a flickr image's status for Commons; it's called Flickr review. We could have "PD review", where trusted users verify a PD status and tag the image with a template. That way, two years later when User:JaneBlow posts a FLC/FAC, etc, you, me, and others don't waste our time reinventing the wheel. Not to mention a known PD image can't be used anymore because a URL changed or whatever. Do we do this with images from books? Not yet, but we probably will...Do we say "I don't own that book and it's not in my local library so you have to prove it's PD from 1900 by sending me the book", nope we don't yet, but that's basically what we do with images. Obviously, I'm not talking cases such as when the uploader didn't source the image at all. Food for thought. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PLEASE CENTRALIZE DISCUSSION HERE ON COMMONS: commons:Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.