I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this list has great potential to become the first Featured List from India (schools). I have worked tirelessly reforming it. There is a dearth of featured lists from Schools category (only 3 as of now) and therefore it'll be great if this can achieve FL status. Moreover, this seems to be the only potential alumni Featured list from India (schools, colleges and university included). I will be deeply grateful for all your suggestions and comments. Thanks!Merlaysamuel : Chat 02:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
OpposeComment I appreciate the hard work that the author of this list has put in, but sometimes a list is simply not notable enough for FL. The list is mainly a Who's Who of the smugly corrupt elite that has garnered India its exceptionally high position on the Corruption perception index. There are scores of schools in India that take in the children of the privileged. Why single this one out? More pertinently, why not a list of schools that India's less privileged—80% of its population—go to? A featured list of Government schools, whose students, lacking a putrid parental legacy of ill-gotten gains, lacking decent class rooms, decent teachers, and any playing fields, are nevertheless able to make a decent life for themselves. Why are people who dropped out of the school in the list of alumni? I can easily spot a few (Rahul Gandhi who was not in the "Class of 88," but rather dropped out in 83, Sanjay Gandhi). I'd like to see proof that the rest of the people listed actually graduated (and didn't just spend a year or two as the Gandhis did). Why is the lead so innocuous sounding? Why nothing critical about the school? I'm sure reliable sources abound. Why is Karan Singh, for example, listed as a harmless upper house politician? Why are we not told that he was the Sadr-i-Riyasat of Kashmir and the last of the unpopular Hindu Dogra "Royalty" of Kashmir which after having purchased the Kashmir valley from the British in 1846 then proceeded to screw the 96% Muslim majority of the valley out of house and home for upward of a century? The lead is poorly written. It is an airbrushed picture of the school. It has inadvertent humor: "was founded in 1935 by Satish Ranjan Das, who sought to establish a public school that would be adapted to Indian traditions and culture. Its first headmaster was Arthur E. Foot, a former science teacher at Eton College." Wikipedia can't give its imprimatur to lists that really should be alumni pages on private websites surfed in the never-never-land of whiskey and soda. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Fowler, I've been asked to comment here since I am one of the editors currently working with Merlay and DoscoinDoon to get The Doon School up to GA. Now, I've never even looked at a FL and have no idea what the criteria are, but what does the notability of the list have to do with passing or failing? Maybe FL is completely different from other Featured/Good areas, I don't know. I understand your concerns about the general airbrushing...I've been working on that at The Doon School as well. Any explanations would be gratefully appreciated. NoleloverTalk·Contribs 02:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Well, articles themselves need to be notable. Doon is a relatively new school (opened in 1935). (The British opened thousands of schools in India both during Company rule (especially in the 1830s, 40s, and 50s) and during the Raj (especially during the years 1857–1887). Many, many of these schools have alumni that are more notable. For example, the List of alumni of Alfred High School, Rajkot, which includes Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, is historically more important, and is likely more notable by Wikipedia standards. When non-notable lists, such as Doon's, (for which I note the principal author has recently created dozens of pages to hastily accord the listees belated recognition) appear on FL, they sap the time and energy of reviewers who could better employed in other Wikipedia related endeavors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
To which I roughly say, so what? So there's another article that would be better off as featured...ok, I'm sure you know the whole Vital articles problem (Vital articles are one of the most important and least maintained groups). We don't say that articles about individual species can't get to GA because Animal is not there as well. If FL actually looks at the content of the list itself and judges it bases on other more "important" lists, that's fine: I've never seen anything in the criteria other than content, formatting and sources though. If this list is not completely comprehensive that is one thing, but saying that Alfred's alumni list is not featured so this one shouldn't be either seems really odd. NoleloverTalk·Contribs 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, not quite. If an individual species page gets the FA star, we don't say it is in danger of becoming more vital than Animal. Here, by contrast, by assigning the FL star, we can make an elite private school which, has produced some upper level politicians, bureaucrats, and army men in India, but nothing exceptional (no Nobel laureates, no outstanding musicians, no famous scientists), into something that may begin to appear vital. By assigning the FL star we are indirectly implying that mediocre but successful politicians, business men, bureaucrats, and army men, are just as vital as India's exceptional citizens (a Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a Rabindranath Tagore, or a C. V. Raman) none of whom went to elite private schools. Anyway, this is as far as I go. I'm tired. I'm traveling and editing in snatches of time. I have little interest in Doon School. If you guys want to spend your time pushing the fluff, its your business. I've registered my opposition. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand, and thank you for your comments. As I said before, I realize that there is a problem with the fluff, am not pushing it (I wouldn't have advised filing this FLN until some of that had been sorted out) and had you opposed on those grounds I would have thought it entirely justified. I just don't quite get the point about making this list appear more vital then it deserves (and that point applies to a lot of list/articles)...that may be the case, but isn't it up to the editor to decide what articles they want to improve? IFF the list meets the FL criteria (absolutely no comment from me on that) then the list should go featured, right? NoleloverTalk·Contribs 16:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Umm... perhaps, Fowler, you should take a look at:
WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLEGROUND- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or battleground for your favorite cause, including critiquing Indian elites (elites on which, in matters such as the variety of racism known as caste, I suspect I have more agreement with you than you might think).
WP:CENSOR - Wikipedia is not censored to eliminate the mention of organizations that offend you, nor information about them.
If you want a listing of government-run Indian schools and/or their notable alumni, then I invite you to put one together, instead of spending your time critiquing this list for not being what you're looking for. You may well have some valid points in what you've written above, but thanks to the rest of it, nobody is that likely to listen to them. Allens (talk | contribs) 03:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
What you see as soapboxing is simply a provocative way of pointing out that the list is shamelessly biased. Why have list of cabinet ministers? Why not list of cronies of Rajiv Gandhi who have been accused of corruption? There are likely more reliable sources attesting to the latter, including on their own pages. See for example: Kamal_Nath#Controversies. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines that don't allow those section titles? I can easily add them and make this article more balanced. How about a section that has a list of Doon school children of India's impossibly rich? I'm sure that section will be quite long. A section, on the other hand, of scholarship candidates at Doon School, is in danger of never starting. I am claiming that the manner of choosing section titles biases the reader into viewing the school in a favorable light. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I can certainly see labeling any alumni who have been convicted of corruption, and perhaps anyone who has been formally charged (although any immunity laws in India may cause a problem with convictions/charges as a criterion); allegations/accusations can happen to anyone, innocent or guilty. How do you define "impossibly rich" without bias? I am uncertain regarding how to display such an additional grouping - is it customary to have entries of people under more than one category (if all the categories are applicable)? Allens (talk | contribs) 14:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, many alumni appear in multiple categories. I'm sure one could replace "impossibly rich" with something quantifiable, perhaps even millionaires" (in a country whose per capita income is less that $2,000). I just noticed too that the sourcing is quite sloppy. An author's google book page is used as the source for the author as writer; I even noticed some CVs. The School's web site is used for some assertions favorable to the school, and so forth .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment for Fowler To begin with, I am a Doon School student in Grade 9th and though I could have been biased by supporting this list, I'll only like to refute each on of Fowler's sloppy arguments, and that too by Wikipedia guidelines not through my biased opinion. Let me take them one by one-
(i)The very first thing you say a list is simply not notable enough for FL well, we'll leave that for more experienced school editors to decide and let the readers decide for themselves. (ii)The list is mainly a Who's Who of the smugly corrupt elite - Notable alumni, in fact, comprises the Who's who, so I can't really understand what you mean by that comment. Also, to make a sweeping generalization that they are smugly corrupt elite is your personal opinion. Why then don't you mention Bunker Roy who opened the Barefoot CollegeTilonia college and spending his entire life for the underprivileged or Kobad Ghandy who is fighting for the Naxals. You might be just looking at 1-2 politicians and that might have driven you to make the trite remark. (iii)There are scores of schools in India that take in the children of the privileged. Why single this one out? More pertinently, why not a list of schools that India's less privileged—80% of its population—go to? - There is no such thing as singling out a list. It just happened that this list already existed and the editor only worked hard to bring it to FL level. Also because finding Wiki articles for the alumni was easier. If you're really concerned about the others, why haven't you taken any step towards it? Why didn't you start a list? Do you not practice what you preach? It just shows double-standards! This is not a forum to show your sympathies for the 80% as you put it but to objectively review somebody's hard-work! (iv)Why nothing critical about the school? I implore you, by all means, please add whatever you think is critical of the school alumni in the list with reliable references. I will be only too happy to see it. You come out of nowhere and just say 'why nothing critical?' without giving a thought that there is a possibility that there is nothing overtly critical about it...! Do you do this everywhere on Wikipedia..just go to each article and spout 'but what is the critical point?' (v)Why is Karan Singh listed as a harmless upper house politician? Why are we not told ..... Now this is what should be called singling out. This sort of information should be placed on Karan singh's page and not next to his entry. And, just for the record, how do you say he is listed as harmless upper house politician?? He is just there with all other people with appropriate categories..! (vi)The lead is poorly written - Why do you say that? It's easy to make allegations and shallow-comments. Tell us why if you can make any significant contribution. Don't just vent in the air...! (vii)It has inadvertent humor: "was founded in 1935 by Satish Ranjan Das - I'm either too obtuse to grasp the humour in that line or there isn't any. I really don't know what's the inadvertent humour in it?? (viii) Your very last line just escapes me. I really don't understand your motives here. I re-iterate my previous point:- why are you making sweeping generalizations against innocent and praiseworthy people? Not all of them are what you think they are. Not even some of them I reckon judging by your comments. Conclusion - I believe Fowler has something against The Doon School. S/he is not objectively acknowledging the work that the editor has put in to make it a presentable list. Fowler, may I request you to distance yourself while reviewing it and not go hysterical. Because your comments are just a slap in the face of everybody associated with the list. Please hold your emotions..this is not the right platform. The time you took writing all that baloney could have been well-spent in making a Featured list for other schools which couldn't have been singled out, and that would have done us all proud! Thank you!
P.S:- Fowler, if you have anything to say to me regarding this, please do so on my talk page. Don't waste this space please. We are all looking forward to hear from more serious and objective reviewers. Thanks! DoscoinDoon (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment, tending toward Support (BTW, while I've done some editing on the related The Doon School article, including some mention of critical material - some of which I see is now in the list article - I've never edited this article):
I'm not sure what the faculty:student ratio or the IB have to do with a list of alumni. The second paragraph has rather more to do with with it. Please clarify the relevance of, or remove, most of the first paragraph. (I realize that some introduction is necessary to give people an idea of what Doon is, but I doubt the faculty:student ratio or use of the IB has that much to do with it, without further evidence otherwise.) RESOLVED
The notability of the list is rather firmly established by the lengthy listing of references, the material in the second paragraph, etc. I do see a few (not many) inclusions without their own articles; such should have at least 2 independent, secondary-source, reliable references to establish notability, not only a reference to establish their being Doon school alumni (although this can be combined with one of the two references for notability).
There is some confusion as to whether someone should be termed an "alumnus" if he did not actually graduate from the Doon School (although evidently such a person would qualify as an "ex-Dosco", having formerly been a "Dosco"). This criterion should be made clearer; perhaps a different coloring or other marking could be used if the person did not actually graduate, if such are to be included? RESOLVED
There need be no confusion on that point: a "list of alumni" would include both "graduates" and "former students." A "list of graduates" would include graduates only. Definition given and linked in my comment above, but please feel free to check other dictionaries as well. --Raven (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The formatting initially looks good, although I'll have to take a look at current FLs to compare.
I can see an argument for the mentioning of admission criteria; that it's male-only (and the criticism of this) should be rather clearer.RESOLVED
There are quite a few links to "MD" - which is a disambiguation page; please be more specific in what is meant. If it's "medical doctor", link to that page, and note that this is not a position in a corporation, unlike "CEO" - "MD of Ranbaxy" is not correct terminology.RESOLVED
That's all for the moment; I will see if I can come up with more comments.Allens (talk | contribs) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving some of the above; note that the "peer reviewer" (accessible via the toolbox) is finding a few problems, most notably a contraction ("can't" - of course, this may be in the title of a reference or something...) and, more problematically, a dead link. I also note the problematic sentence fragment in the second paragraph of "Doscos have achieved prominence in politics, government service,". I've done a bit of copy-editing on the last lead paragraph. Allens (talk | contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment a quick scan of Google News items seems to reveal that Doon School (of which I've never heard) has received sufficient coverage to be notable, and therefore an alumni article of a notable school is generally agreed to be notable as long as every member of the list is indeed notable and referenced per our criteria. Fowler&Fowler has doubts this list should exist, let alone a nomination here for FLC, I'm not sure I understand why. For what it's worth, this is a 2012 featured list candidate, not a 2009 WP:FAC, so I'm not sure of the relevance of the link to a set of old FAC reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The last time I looked at the Indian dailies, most stories carried by them did not constitute reliable sources. Sentences such as "Back in the 1990s, the Economist said ....," the kind of chatter you might hear in a pub, were not uncommon (and was in fact being used in this article until I removed it). In my view, a list which is being overwhelmingly cited to Indian dailies is not necessarily notable. Since you seem to be reposing implicit faith in Indian news, I'm happy to take another look at the sourcing. Perhaps they have improved as dramatically, since 2009, as you seem to be implying Wikipedia has. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, firstly I couldn't see the relevance of reviewing 2009 FACs when this is a 2012 FLC, different criteria, different types of article. Secondly, I just did a Google News search on Doon School and found many BBC reports (including this and this) which seem to assert reasonable notability... I don't recall mentioning the legitimacy of Indian news sources anywhere.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a spurious, if not preposterous, thing to say that Indian dailies can't be trusted. The Doon School is an Indian school and therefore its Media coverage will be by-and-large Indian. Though I will be only too happy to show you the Doon school in global papers such as The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Independent...a few I can think of right now... Fowler, I don't understand what your issues are here. You are not reviewing the list, which you should do, instead you're just rambling on why it shouldn't be here or why other less-notable schools don't have a list. As for The Economist reference, I have been trying relentlessly to get access to The Economist's Archives. It's not an easy thing to procure a reference from the 1990s + an indian daily such as The Economic Times is a reputed one and till the time the primary reference is found, that reference should be allowed. I'll also be glad to see, Fowler, any lists you've been working on lately for which you've shown us your utmost sympathies in the posts above... Merlaysamuel : Chat 09:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, you have your work cut out for you. It says, "Back in the 1990s ..." If the Economics Times journalist is remembering right, you only have ten years to search. Until then, I'm afraid, the Economics Times will not do as a source for what the Economist said. Do you seriously believe that Doscos constitute the world's second most influential network after Harvard? (Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Harrow, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Mayo College, KGB, Communist Party of China... are all trailing in their networking?) I've rewritten the lead. Made is more realistic and removed the grandiose fluff. It is now better sourced. Both David Macdougall's book (Princeton) and the Outlook magazine article by Anjali Puri are more reliable references. When I find time, I'll look at the actual list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment First, let me compliment the creators of the list on the obvious labor of love that has gone into creating something this well referenced and apparently reasonably comprehensive. You're all probably too mad to notice this but Fowler's acerbicness has taken an already good lead one notch higher. About notability, I don't see that as a criterion in the featured list criteria but, regardless, I believe, that the Doon School is notable enough. I'm inclined to support making this a featured list but a few nits:
As I've indicated in the talk page, I don't like the idea of an Indian school highlighting royalty. That is fine for Harrow and Eton but Indian ex-princes do not have the same notability as do British Dukes and Barons. I suggest moving that section to the bottom of the list. Imo the sections should be in alphabetical order for neutrality but, if not, royalty should not be highlighted.
I suggest removing the separation by nationality. It makes the list jerky and is unnecessary because there are few non-Indians on the list anyway. For example, Syed Mustafa could be labeled as Ambassador of Pakistan to Indonesia, etc.
In some sections, there are large gaps between the section header and the first item because of image placement. These need to be fixed.
Comment about sourcing I just went through the sourcing for the Cabinet Ministers section. I'm afraid it is might not be up to par. In some cases, the link is what a Google search would throw up if you searched for "Doon School" and "Mr. X". In other words, the link might have those two expressions but not in the same place and not applying to each other. In other instances there is a reference to the "Doon School buddy" but nothing is said graduation or alumni status, no reference to the Cabinet post or the years of tenure. I've refrained from posting my objections here; I simply left them in in-line tags in the text, but if this is a fair sampling of the entire article, then I'm afraid the sourcing will need reworking. I know the author has put in a lot of work and that he is a new Wikipedian. I don't want to discourage him, but at the same time FL sourcing standards will need to be maintained. Perhaps, one option would be to seek help from an expert such as user:Fifelfoo; the author could also temporarily withdraw the FLC, work on it without the pressure, and then resubmit in a few weeks when it is more rigorous. There's nothing shameful about withdrawing and resubmitting. (I did that myself with the Mandell Creighton FAC in late December 2011, when it became clear that it would not be resolved before my travels began.) I would have liked to help myself, but I'm traveling and often unavailable. This might also mean that some entries in the list will need to be taken out until such time as rigorous sources become available. One last point: it might be best to have all refs in one format, the "citation" format. This will likely be my last post here. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Fowler, as I pointed out earlier, alphabetisation cannot work with this list. The featured lists you mention are different because they are short. And also, each school is different. We do not have to necessarily adopt their model. I am afraid alphabetical list will be of no use here.
Oppose I have only glanced at the list, but looking at the sourcing, has me worried. You have a number of references that have not been formatted properly, remember featured lists are supposed to represent wikipedia's best work, so this is an absolute must. In one ref you have The Indian Express and another Indian Express, consistency is essential between refs. I'm also not convinced of the reliability of some of the sources. For instance what makes socialedge.org and careers360 reliable sources. The tables also do not meet MOS:DTT, and tables with multiple entries could be sortable. There is too much work to do on this list for it to pass in the timescale of this nom, I would recommend withdrawing it, working on it and then getting it peer reviewed, before bringing back again. NapHit (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment The nominator of this FLC hasn't edited since 22 April, so I'll be moving to archive the nomination in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.