Talk:List of College of William & Mary alumni

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:List of College of William & Mary alumni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am the nominator and am hoping this will reach GA status. It has failed a FL nomination, but I believe that it still qualifies to be considered a Good Article nonetheless. Jrcla2 ^talk 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the good article criteria states that lists cannot become good articles. If you feel that you have resolved the issues mentioned in the previous FLC discussion, then you may renominate this as a featured list candidate.--Edge3 (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, drat. Thanks. Jrcla2 ^talk 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one

Representative Fimian needs a mention - http://keithfimian.com/meet-keith

Better source

I don't have the time to do this right now, but there was an article in the New York Times yesterday about a fellow listed in the alumni list. That is a far better source than what is given right now for William Stuntz. Here is the hyperlink: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/us/21stuntz.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=college%20of%20william%20and%20mary&st=cse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.111.26 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Washington not an alumnus?

Article states George Washington was a W&M alumnus in the "class of 1754", without citation. Meanwhile the George Washington article doesn't mention him ever having attended any college, plus that article's talk page flatly states he never studied at William & Mary, though he was later the first chancellor of the college. Can someone who can provide a source either way please clear this up? Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is, at best, a gross overstatement. I'm a W&M grad, and even I think so. Starting in 1693, the College had been put in charge of examining and licensing surveoyrs. Washington indeed got his license from the College, but I don't think he ever took any courses at the College. Just getting his license there would be like saying that President Clinton was educated at the Arkansas Department of Motor Vehicles since he got a driver's license from them. If anyone can document that Washington actually STUDIED anything at the College, I'd like to see it. I don't think that he ever lived in Williamsburg as a teenager when he was licensed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.5.138 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the College, he was. https://alumni.wm.edu/notable_alumni/george_washington.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.199.181 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad intro and overall organization

The main contributor to this article might not have read the Wikipedia Guide on intros and might not know they are supposed to be short and introduce the actual topic at hand, explaining what the article is about. If he had, he might have learned that the "intro" to this article is really poorly handled. Either this article should be a list or it should be text. (And, it should be a list.) What possible reason is there for including a long list of athletes who attended the college in standard prose in the "intro" before then proceeding to list them all again in the appropriately headed section of the list?

According to Wiki standards, this sort of article needs to have one, perhaps two, paragraphs introducing the content (the list). I'll cut it down myself later. The main contributor ought to check out some other lists like the list of Harvard alumni, justices of the United States Supreme Court, or presidents of the United States to see how this should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.111.26 (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Dartmouth's alumni is another good list which does not include any similar fluff at the start and was a featured list.

Response

For anyone in the future who reads the above thoughtful criticism, please see the response left on that IP's talk page which directly addresses each complaint. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is a LIST of notable alumni. It is not an article ABOUT each one. Why include a whole paragraph about Jon Stewart in the intro? What does that have to do with the LIST of alumni? On the other hand, a point like the missing years' graduates have to do with the LIST itself, because it explains gaps in the LIST itself. And a general summary identifying bigger pictures which someone might not otherwise see when reviewing the list of individual items is fine. For example, it is fine to point out that WM has had more presidential students than most; that is a point about the LIST of famous alumni which somone might overlook if just reading all of the individual entries. But what about the paragraph about sports stars? Your condescending retort did not explain what that tells the reader about the LIST other than pull certain entries out in their entirety and move them to the top. Are we supposed to go away with the impression that WM has generated more than its fair share of sports figures?

Also, your intro was nine paragraphs long. I don't think even the longest articles justify nine paragraphs of intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.111.26 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad Organization

This article has a lot of problems with organization. Why are there so many people who served in the UNITED STATES Congress listed in the State and Local section? Shouldn't that be the section for members of state and local government? Otherwise, what distinguishes those people from the ones listed in the Congresspeople listed up above? (To the extent someone served in both a statehouse position and a federal position, it seems he or she should be prioritized and listed in the higher position.)

Also, why is the list of governors not part of the STATE section?

I suspect that these problems were associated with cutting and pasting while constructing the list, but they need to be addressed. I would suggest a hierarcy of FEDERAL notable (Executive (Presidents, Vice Presidents, etc.), Legislative (Senators, Congressmen, etc.), Judicial (Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, District Courts, etc.), Other (Ambassadors, Appointees, etc.)) and then a simpler list of STATE notables (Governors, Statehouse Members (of whatever level), Mayors, Others).

Also, subdividing out Virginia at any specific level does not seem to make much sense. There are certainly more alumni associated with Virginia than other states, but as for this list, that hardly seems the notable characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.111.26 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa

I'm cutting this category from the explanation of the symbols used on table. There are only two listings who are so designated, and both of them are specifically mentioned as having been the co-founders of the organization. Obviously, they were members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.5.138 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Standardization

It looks like this page has seen a lot of additions lately. Because several posters have been making changes, I'm going to suggest some standardizations.

• Notations about sources of fame should be arranged in chronological order, even if that means that the reason the person made the list is not listed first.
• Dates of service should be given using the (1734-54) format and not (1734-1754) format
• If a single person would be included in more than one sub-list, keep the person's full mini-bio in place for each separate entry.
• Don't include cross-references to other sub-lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfReader (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretion in making the cut

It seems that previous editors have dropped the bar pretty low for making it onto this list. While the list is not specifically named as such, I think the point is to include NOTABLE alumni. In the federal section, I have gone back to previous work by others and tried to include all members of Congress, all cabinet members, all presidents (obviously), and all members of the federal courts.

At the state level, certainly governors should make the list, but I don't really think that state trial court judges are NOTABLE. I'm not even sure that a list of all alums who have served in statehouses is really relevant. Regardless, I struck mere candidates for office and things like that.

In sports, I think the list should be limited to any players in the relevant league (NFL for football, for example), those of special note wherever they played, and coaches. I just think assistant coaches and players from the European Football League are not really notable. I know that WP is not just for American audiences, but playing in the Canadian football league is not really NOTABLE in the field of football. Being the fastest runner in a nursing home doesn't make you a notable track star.

And, note that I am not confusing fame with notability. For example, I have included some old players from the 1920s and 1930s who people today have probably never heard of. Same for early 19th century federal judges. But, in their days, they were at the top of their game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfReader (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's a pre-existing page for the alumna/us, then it's notable. Do not take out alumni just because you think they don't deserve to be on the list, especially if they have their own WP entry already. Notice that this article is called "List of College of William & Mary alumni" NOT "List of Only the Most Notable College of William & Mary alumni" — it can be as long and inclusive as necessary, which it is.

In response to likening the Canadian Football League to a nursing home: get a clue. Just because you have an American-centric mind doesn't mean that any sports (especially football) that fall outside of our borders are JV-status. Most good CFL teams could compete with any number of NFL teams in a game, so trying to straw man its importance is laughable. As for NFL Europa, there is only one player listed there and it is because he was a starter on the NFL Europe Championship-winning team, which is more than enough reason to mention him.

If I see you start cropping alumni out haphazardly because you don't seem to think they should be on the page for your own personal reasons then I'm going to revert it. I guess I'm going to have to start watching every edit more closely now. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As to the "notability" issue, please don't claim that I have American-centric problems just because I offered an example of a European football player as not making the cut. It was an example.

There are about 75,000 alumni of the College living, and there are probably at least that many below ground. Despite the fact that the name of the article does not specifically refer to "notable," it surely implies that. If this is meant to be a list of EVERY graduate, then it really needs to be deleted completely as wildly falling short of the mark of being comprehensive. It doesn't even get to 0.5% coverage. Moreover, one of the columns about each graduate is "Notability." When this list began, it was undeniably meant to include notable grads and not everyone who attended the College.

So, assuming that the list is supposed to include just notable graduates, I'm happy to agree that different people can define notability differently. Perhaps the solution is to create a separate sub-category distinguishing Major League Baseball and National Football League players from other leagues, for example. This is no different than dividing out Virginia governors from others. When most of the entries on a list (all governors) share a common characteristic (Virginian), that characteristic starts to look more like a defining criteria for inclusion in a special list and not just a random characteristic of a larger group.

I'm glad you spent some time getting this list on track, but it is not your personal property. Don't jump down my throat for exercising my WP right to make changes. For example, you wrote this: "If I see you start cropping alumni out haphazardly because you don't seem to think they should be on the page for your own personal reasons then I'm going to revert it." Well, fine. But, just remember that your haphazard inclusion of something because you seem to think it should be on the page for your own personal reasons might drawn a reversion. Now before you go typing a snide response to that, all I'm saying is that your opinion about what is "haphazard" and what is worthy of inclusion is just that -- your opinion. Moreover, my decision to delete something was not haphazard by any definition. In fact, I specifically explained myself. If you do the same, then you can convince me otherwise.

I'd love to see this list resubmitted for Featured List status, but it still needs some work. For example, I've doubled the list of ambassadors, added about forty congressmen, twenty senators, and more than a dozen federal judges. I mean, when this article was submitted for Featured List status, it didn't even include all four of the College's Supreme Court justices. So, please don't claim that I'm being too selective in deciding things about coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfReader (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing help

I added an entry for Hugh Nelson, ambassador to Spain. I am not sure how to NOT link to an article for another person with that same name. There is no article on Hugh Nelson, I don't think. I am aware of the problem and will try to figure it out soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfReader (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)