Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 07:56, 2 March 2010 [1].

---

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)/archive1

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

I am nominating this for featured list because it's next in the series of United States Military Academy alumni featured lists, working towards making it a featured topic like we did with United States Naval Academy alumni lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) :Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) not any more, it sat on FLC so long I'm out. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Some of the pictures need better alt text. Is there a reason why the General References are in every Reference column with the note template? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the Gen Refs, it's simply that I've done other lists in this series like that and no one has objected and I had people look at this one before listing at FLC. I guess they could come out but I'd prefer to leave them in. As for ALT text, which ones? Saying "some" doesn't tell me which ones you think need tweaked. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the only problem I see with the General References is that you've added them as notes but they are used so much as notes its a wonder why they aren't in the <ref></ref>, and to me it almost makes them seem not so general because of this. The Alt Text might not be a problem but might be more just me. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 09:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comment - ""Civil War Generals from West Point". University of Tennessee – Knoxville. 2003. Retrieved 2009-064-28." 064? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 17:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't see any problems. Well done.--Kumioko (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs Named references "johnston" and "beverly" are defined twice. Civil War High Commands is used multiple times with different page numbers— you can leave it that way or merge and note the page numbers with {{rp}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the two refs. As for page numbers, I'd rather leave as is since most people don't like RP format. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well cited, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- meets FL standards, although I would still like to see an addition of more sections (ie. See also/external links).--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See also? Have you looked at the extensive links in the templates? Serves the same purpose. External links? As you said, hardly required, not to mention the massive info avail in the extensive refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very true, I apologize for the inconvenience.Truco ₅₀₃ 03:05, 2 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.