Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The class the stars fell on/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 The Rambling Man 07:40, 7 January 2011.

The class the stars fell on

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... West Point's class of 1915 was so sucessful they gave it a name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the capitalisation (or lack of) in the title. Doesn't seem consistent with the sources.
 * Per the MOS, the initial word only is capitalized. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well presumably if this is commonly referred to with capitals, then WP:COMMONNAME comes into play? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME refers to the wording of teh title, not the capitalization. If we decide that the nickname qualifies as a proper noun, then Naming conventions (capitalization) states that capitalization would be appropriate.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it seems to be capitalised in the majority of the sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This list appears to be incomplete, with only the Generals of the class the stars fell on listed.
 * Yes. The others could be listed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Either they should or shouldn't and some explanation as to why they're not provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest not attempting to list them. The referencing would be a nightmare, and the notability of the Class of 1915 is the generals, not the remaining officers. I don't think the list would be worse off for not having thier names listed.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per my earlier comment, then reasoning and explanation should be given as to why this isn't the "class the stars fell on" it's a subset of the class. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead is a little short.
 * I would prefer one large table with the ranks added in as a column, and then the whole thing made sortable. This would also have the benefit of consistent column widths as you'd only have one table, and the images currently squashing just the first three tables would squash the whole new table consistently.
 * It would have some serious drawbacks though. We'd lose the photographs, and the sort would have to be on a hidden field. But most importantly, we would have to change the mem template, and I'm not going to do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would avoid using the template, this list can easily and happily standalone without reference to a template. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't see what template you're referring to. There's no "mem" template as far as I can see.  You're just using a bunch of individual tables, so merging should be trivial.  You wouldn't lose the photos, sorting should use regular sorting templates, some may be hidden, but there's no problem with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to a new version that does that. Figured out how to sort on a hidden field. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The images are portraits so could use the  parameter.
 * Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reason why Vernon Evans is not linked at all in that sea of red links in the Major Generals section?
 * Yes. There is another, more famous, Vernon Evans, who already has a page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So create a page which is disambiguated from the extant Vernon Evans... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note 2 (which is a reference) is a deadlink.
 * Links change over time. Corrected this one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 13 has no publisher information.
 * Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 79 is a deadlink for me.
 * Hmmm dead link. Fortunately, it has an access date on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it can't be used to verify what it's being used to verify. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an obituary notice. It was used to verify the date "1951" which of course was not in Callum (1950). I'm sure I can find it somewhere else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Second general ref needs an en-dash for the year range in its title.
 * What direct relevance do the "papers of..." have to this list (in the External links section)?
 * Deleted section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments -- Beloved Freak  15:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I too would prefer just one table, sortable by name and rank. It would mean an extra column, but you could perhaps lose the "references" column, adding the citations to the previous ("notability") column, which allow more space.
 * No, it would mean a lot more than that. You would need to change the standard template. This would affect many other articles. It was adopted after a discussion. Another discussion would be required to change it. It is used by a number of other featured lists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence could be a little clearer for people not familiar with the topic. I found the list interesting, but on initially reading the first sentence, I was none the wiser as to what it was all about. "West Point class of 1915" doesn't mean much to me. It would perhaps be clearer to spell out United States Military Academy at West Point, and explain a bit about what it is.
 * The lead could be expanded. Is it known where the expression originated (as in, who started using it)?
 * I'm not sure about the column heading "Notability". It's a bit of a Wikipedia buzzword, but I'm not sure it works well here. Perhaps it would be better as "notes" or "details" or "career details" or something.
 * I'm not sure that the external links included are that relevant. They would be better on the article page for each individual (if there is one).
 * Removed external refs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not sure there are any affected dates in the article, it's unclear why Use dmy dates is used. Is that correct for this article?
 * Yes, articles on the US Military use this form, as per WP:STRONGNAT Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that is odd since that very link suggests articles with strong US ties should use mdy dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the bit where it says: Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that bit'! Live and learn. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the most of any class in the history of the United States Military Academy..." - needs a citation
 * Citation added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More images? There are other PD images available that could be used in the list.
 * Added one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose lead is way too short. It could contain more about the teachers or the specific training that they had to go through. It could have a bit more detail on the career of the most successful members. It could talk about the rest of the top of the class not included here (i.e. #2 and #3: what happened to them?). Nergaal (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'll oppose solely on the lead as it doesn't cover the subject to the extent I think it should be covered to. Afro  ( Talk ) 10:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Further comments The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I see rank has been changed into a load of graphics which are unexplained and meaningless to a non-expert.
 * But they are explained in the text at the top. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you insist on separate tables for the rank, then why have rank as sortable?
 * So I can merge them later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In Firefox, the first image now appears on top of the right-hand side of the table.
 * Strange.. I looks good on that browser on my machine. Obviously an artefact of the loss of the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the column you say "Notability" should be called that. Perhaps just Notes, because it shouldn't be down to you to decide what makes these individuals "notable".
 * Changed to "Notes" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment
 * The images now used to represent the ranks are not only confusing to a non-expert, they're also a bit of an accessibility issue. For example, with images turned off, one of the ranks reads "US-O9 insignia.svg". Beloved Freak  15:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is explained in the article. Alt text added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments At a minimum, I'd have to see the lead expanded before I could support.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of folks have mentioned the lead being insufficient, and I agree. If you can find any references about the promotion rate of other classes to compare, that would be a good way to fill it out. You could also reference the attrition rate for the class as well (i.e. how many didn't make it), or if anything else was unique about the class (maybe the training schedule as WWI ramped up?).
 * The alt text seems a bit thin, and could be more descriptive. A good example would be List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War (I think Kumioko went a bit overboard, but trending in that direction would be good).
 * Per Rambling Man and BelovedFreak, the graphics-only rank column is a bit unclear to some readers. I would prefer to see the actual names of the ranks (i.e. Lieutenant general) with the image. If the text isn't included, then the alt text for the rank insignia should definately be changed to the name of the rank, because "x-star" is unclear and informal.
 * Redlinks vs. unlinked: you will want to be consistant, one way or the other. I'd suggest removing the redlinks for individuals whose biographies aren't likely to be created by the close of the FLC; but the best solution would be to find more refs and make a bunch of articles (even if most of them wound up being stubs).
 * In the Notes section, sometimes the wording doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For example, Omar Bradley's states "Commanded 82nd Infantry Division (1942), 28th Infantry Division (1942), II Corps (1943), First Army (1944), Twelfth Army Group (1944–1945) Chief of Staff of the United States Army (1948–1949), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1949–1953)"... but you don't command being the Chief of Staff or Chairman. I'd clarify it to "Commanded 82nd Infantry Division (1942), 28th Infantry Division (1942), II Corps (1943), First Army (1944), Twelfth Army Group (1944–1945), and served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army (1948–1949), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1949–1953)" [bold added for illustration]. I'd also be interested to see notes about any that had post-military notability (like politicians or astronauts or something), and if any were killed in action (since most saw combat in WWII and Korea, and probably some in WWI that never made general).
 * You lean very heavily on two sources. Nothing really wrong with that, and I would certainly never oppose for that, but I like to see a greater variety of references. You could try stealing borrowing references from the biography articles for those individuals that have them.

Comment is this nomination still active? The article hasn't been modified since 23 December. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been working on it, but the amount of work required is very large. I think it would be best to withdraw the nomination and re-nominate it in a few months time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


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