Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of famous Kentuckians

List of famous Kentuckians

Self-nomination - Groups the most notable past and present natives of the U.S. state of Kentucky in one place, organized by area of notability and connection to the state. This is my first time nominating anything for Good or Featured status, so any feedback is appreciated. Acdixon 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - lead is too short. Renata 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead pretty much sets forth the criteria for inclusion in the list. What other information should be conveyed? Acdixon 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for famous in the list? I'm always a bit reluctant to support lists like famous, notable, important, etc since they're so easily subjective. -- Ned Scott 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the same notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles apply to this list. In other words, if they are notable enough that a Wikipedia article about them would survive a speedy delete challenge, they could be included here. Acdixon 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I'm not sure how useful that is. The problem with a list like this is that it may or may not be significant that they have a connection to Kentucky. If this list is supposed to include a link to every article about someone born in or significantly connected to Kentucky, then a category might be a wiser choice. I know a lot of work was done on this article, and that's great, but.. I think someone might have missed the point. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The lead doesn't summarize the topic well, and should include at least one example of a very famous Kentuckian or explain what do you mean by famous. Otherwise, a very nice list. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the suggested (talk page) name change to List of people from Kentucky. This would be consistent with all other similar lists and satisfy Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions which explicitly discourage the use of "famous" and IMO "Kentuckian" is an awkward word. All people in such lists must be notable (i.e. have or may be expected to have an article) so the adjective is redundant. In addition, fame is a more fleeting and subjective adjective than just being notable for something.

The life dates should use ndash and mdash as appropriate.
Don't wikilink every "notable for" such as "actor". Generally you only link the first occurrence.
There's too much reliance on IMDB (and the URL often isn't to the Bio page that contains the info). IMDB is largely user-contributed with minimal editorial review, as such it doesn't count as a reliable source. I'd forgive this for the "Notable for" but not the main criteria – their connection to Kentucky. So please try to find an alternative. Google for the name + town or state. Try Google Books and other book sites to dig up any biographies. Are there any local newspapers online that you can search?
I don't think you should hyperlink the "publisher" field of cite web. The URL for the article is quite enough linking.
The lead is too short, as other have said. The lead is your chance to to sell the article to us. Why should we be interested in people from Kentucky? What are they particularly famous/renowned for? If you lack inspiration, ask for help on your WikiProject. Colin°^Talk 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. The list has a nice structure: "Connection to Kentucky" makes it clear why people are included. For people where the article provides the references, a specific one shouldn't be needed in this list. Just two things that should be fixed: the list should be renamed to remove "famous" from the title. Living people's year of birth should be listed as "Ned Beatty (b. 1937)" or "Ned Beatty (born 1937)" rather than "Ned Beatty (1937-)". -- User:Docu

Thanks for your support. Will moving the article to List of people from Kentucky right now affect people's ability to comment on the list's nomination in any way? If not, I will move it ASAP. Acdixon 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. The list itself looks very good, but it feels too subjective. I'm alwasy extremely reluctant to approve "list of famous ____" becuase the criteria sually varies between people. Plus not everything needs a wikilink if there's other ones on the page. Also, I can't approve anything where the lead is one sentence. --Wizardman 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list is almost there, there are a bunch of minor formatting/style things which need work, however:
- I support the page move to list of people from Kentucky; since this nomination will probably fail within a day or two, move the page, work on fixing up the list a bit, and then come back.
  - I've requested the move from an administrator. For some reason, I'm unable to do it myself. Acdixon 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been said, the lead is too short. Sure, it describes the page all right, but can you put in a little more detail? I might suggest listing criteria for inclusion; for example, Diane Sawyer wasn't born or raised in KY, but she lived in Lexington for some period of time and anchored a news show there. How long did she have to have lived there to be on the list, or does she actually not belong on the list?
  - Since WikiProject Kentucky is finally getting active again, maybe I can find enough people to build a consensus on criteria now. Incidentally, Diane Sawyer was born and raised in Glasgow, Kentucky. Acdixon 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename the section "Infamous / dubious" so there's no slash. I think just "Infamous" is fine. As for all sections: I'd change the names so that they talk about people, not about what they did (i.e. Scientists instead of "Science," etc.).
  - Good suggestion. As a technical writer, I'm surprised I didn't notice this. Acdixon 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't link to the same thing so close to each other; link once to actor and then not again. Same goes for things in references, like National Aeronautics and Space Administration (and it's okay to call it NASA).
- Somebody correct me on this one if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a date like 1825-1903 be separated by an –, or –?
- References: it's not "IMDB.com", it's the "Internet Movie Database". And as for IMDb – if you can find any stronger references, that would be great, because IMDb is user-submitted, like Wikipedia, but users don't have to cite their sources, unlike Wikipedia. See if there's any sort of news publication that lists these things. Typically birth places aren't so far off on IMDb, but its trivia sections are less credible and weaken the reliability of the source.
- Also for References: make sure to take the exact title at the top of the page; something like IMDb doesn't say "Ned Beatty Bio," it says "Ned Beatty."
Good work overall though. Come back once the page has been improved a little bit, though, and I'd probably support it. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]