Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of notable Alpha Phi Omega members

List of notable Alpha Phi Omega members
This list of notable members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity has undergone extensive research and updating in the past couple of months, and I believe it meets the featured list criteria and exemplifies an ideal structure and format of a list on wikipedia. It is also well-referenced with numerous web & non-web inline citations. Dr. Cash 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose : (for now)
 * Comepleteness - clear this is a list that can never be complete, so it should be indicated as such using Dynamic list.
 * The template has been added. Dr. Cash 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Notable" - the crtieria for a person to be notable enough to be included in this list should be clearly given. The current definition is rather vague.
 * A sentence has been added in the description at the beginning further clarifying the definition of 'notable'. Dr. Cash 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a *huge* number of wikilinks to the Alpha Phi Omega article in the references. Limit to the first instance of any word/phrase only (see WP:MOS).
 * I've removed all but one or two of the wikilinks to Alpha Phi Omega. I also went through and removed wikilinks to 'month, year' as well. Dr. Cash 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, the list is generally good, and I'll support when the above issues have been sorted out. Tom pw (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed my opposition now that the issues I've raised have been dealt with. However, I have to agree that tabulating and/or sorting by area is a must. This would make the list more useful (1a), and make it well-constructed (1f). Tom pw (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose on criterion 1f (see below). An alphabetical listing of what could potentially be a long list is IMO as interesting to read as a phone book. The layout doesn't please the eye and makes it hard to spot the names. I think a table format could improve things. Columns: Name, Chapter, Notability, Reference. See List of Dartmouth College alumni, List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, List of Oregon State University alumni, List of notable brain tumor patients. The photos are all (apart from one astronaut) US politicians, which is a bit dull. Colin°Talk 22:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with the user's assessment of criterion 1f, suggesting that the list should be organized in table format. Most of the list entries are written with a brief description of the person's notability, in prose, which would not lend itself easily to table format. I think this user's desire for table format should be noted as personal preference, and that it should not count against this list for criterion 1f. It is also worth pointing out other lists that are not organized as tables which are featured lists, such as List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), List of snow events in Florida, List of major opera composers, just to name a few. Dr. Cash 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to disagree. Some of the criteria require a subjective judgement. Rather than dismissing my opinion because it is just an opinion, can I request that other reviewer's respond with their views on Sorting, Grouping and table/bullet-list formatting.
 * Of course, a list doesn't need to be table-formatted to be featured. The threshold, IMO, is whether there are enough columns for the vertical order imposed by a table to be useful. The chapter, honorary, and the Philippines aspects could all be usefully placed in columns. The amount of prose you devote to each person is not dissimilar to other such lists, though I do think some of the prose could be usefully shortened. People who attain high positions tend to have lots of responsibilities – establishing which are truly notable would do your readers a service.
 * While we're on notability – there are far, far too many unlinked names, which I didn't spot before. If these people are notable, they should have Wikipedia articles. For example "National Director of Relationships, BSA" is really not a notable person. And what's this War Eagle stuff doing here? I suspect if you group by notable area (as Renata also suggest) we will spot the list is dominated by politics and business leaders, but far fewer sports, science or arts. That to me indicates the list isn't comprehensive and might be a consequence of bias in the Torch & Trefoil source.
 * So I'm changing my position to strong oppose on 1a and weak oppose on 1f. BTW: I do appreciate how much work goes into a list like this, so I don't want you to get any impression that I think it is rubbish. Colin°Talk 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pleased to see the grouping. This does confirm there are serious holes in the comprehensiveness (FLC 1b). I suspect the sources concentrate on Leaders rather than folk who are good at what they do (e.g. top sports people, writers, actors, singers, etc). My opposition on 1a&b still stands and is actionable. Colin°Talk 12:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm Naraht, and I've done most of the research for the list. On the points raised:
 * War Eagle (IV, V & VI). While the War Eagle Mascots are animals, not human, they have been given Honorary membership in the Fraternity (At least two have been doubly verified with the online database at the National Office), they are also notable per their wikipedia page. Those two facts together indicate to me that they should be there. As I understand, at least one of the live husky mascots for the University of Connecticut is also an Honorary brother, and if so, may be appropriate to be added.
 * Emphasis on Leaders. A large amount of the inequality between the groups is found in the brothers who received Honorary Membership. Alpha Phi Omega is a collegiate organization, and for the first forty years required scouting membership to become a brother. During its first 20 or so years, BSA Leaders at the National and Regional level represented part of the National Leadership for the Fraternity, making membership for the National level BSA professionals almost manditory. In addition, as it was scouting related up until 1967, it was an organization where politicians would have seen no downside to accepting honorary membership. If this page were reordered so that the primary sort 1) Being a member as a student, 2) Being an Advisor and 3) Being Honorary and then secondarily divided by field, the divisions in the "member as a student" would be much closer to equal.
 * Online research. In addition, online research for additional members makes finding Politicians easier. The three groups of people that are most likely to have online CVs mentioning their membership are Politicians, Lawyers and University/College faculty and staff.
 * Let me know if any of these need additional information. Naraht 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - suggest sorting by area (sport, politics, science, etc.) Renata 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reordered the list to sort by major area, per suggestions (academic, business, entertainment/sports, government/politics, science/tech, and service/non-profit). Dr. Cash 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support now it's been split by area. My personal preference is for table-based layout, but I don't think that's a good reason to stop this becoming a FL. Tom pw (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose until image license issues are sorted out. I'm concerned about: Image:Tkean.jpg, Image:Fhyost.jpg, Image:Charles robb.jpg, Image:Ray O. Wyland.jpg and Image:Astevenson.jpg.  --Iamunknown 06:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)