Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 12:53, 22 September 2009 (Bot tagging closed FLC discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 12:54, 21 September 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because...the opening paragraph relates to the topic (Easy Company). Most information (Birth, death date, Residence, Military Rank etc.) for each individual is cited with a reference and or footnote. External links are included. Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose from KV5
- I would love to support this list, and think it's a great topic, but it's got a lot of issues at the moment that probably should be dealt with at a peer review before coming to an FL review. Just for starters: violations of WP:COLOR and WP:FLAG; still a lot of "citation needed" templates (which we can't have at all); names should be written in standard first-last format and the {{sortname}} template should be used. The lead is a total of three sentences - not nearly long enough. No images at all. There are British date formats used in a US topic. Notes column shouldn't be sortable. We don't know at what point the ranks are current... is it when they left the service? Is it when they joined? Are they all on the same date? There's still missing information in the table. The reference section... I don't even know where to start. In short, I suggest a withdraw and PR before re-nominating. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, thanks for the comment, I appreciate it! Do you think that I should delete the deceased veterans of Easy Company and add them to the E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) page if some are already not on that page? It seems quite biased to add only the ones that have information about them and not the other 100 some odd members of E Company. Im considering just having living Easy Company members on the page.--Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would probably be one of the worst things you could do, because then the list loses any semblance of stability. It essentially becomes self-deleting. I see no reason why this list's format couldn't be merged into the main company article, because right now it might fail criterion 3B as a content fork. Make sure to familiarize yourself with the featured list criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have attempts been made to address the concerns above? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Aside from the issues raised above by KV5, this list clearly isn't comprehensive. A US Army infantry company of World War II had an authorised strength of over 100 men. Given that most Allied infantry units which fought in the liberation of western Europe suffered over 100% casualties it can be expected that there would have been, at minimum, at least 150 men who saw combat with this unit and many more who served with it during other periods rather than the 50 included in the list. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.