Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2011

Kept

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [1].

---

Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score

Notified: WikiProject Awards and prizes

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails several criteria. I just notices that I supported and even promoted this list back in 2007, but it no longer meets the current standards. The following are glaring weaknesses of the list:

1. The lead does not introduce the subject nor define the scope.
2. The table's structure is not useful at all. It shouldn't be broken up into separate sections. It should be one useful table with sortability.
3. The tables under "nominees" state some names.
4. Too much bolding and too much color inside the tables
5. There can be a separate reference cited under each year.
6. Any images would be greatly welcomed.

Cheetah (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delist at this time because... WP:ACCESS fails. WP:LEAD fails. No images, no reason why the lists shouldn't be sortable, would be nice to know for multiple nominations which one it was each time round (e.g. "John Williams (13)" etc). Refs seem very small indeed on my screen, how odd. Not sure what IMDB is referencing but it's generally not considered a reliable source. One dab link (Spartacus). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC) done number 4,5,6 and 3 partially. Will do other things later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Update please? What's happening here with the outstanding issues GreatOrangePumpkin? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry not to respond... I tried to find more information about 1953–1958, but futile. I hope the lead size is acceptable. As for the accessibility, I hope it does help people with screen readers to understand the article, thus it passes the WP:ACCESS test in my opinion. What do you think? As for Cheetahs comments above, all are done except 3,4,5. I don't understand what's the point of number 3 (?); 4: done; 5: I will finish this, I reached the half... done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 12:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My point #3 is saying that in the "nominees" column there are people's names. Max Steiner, for example, is the director of the winning film, yet he's listed under nominees. Under "Nominees", I expect to see the films that were nominated, but did not win; not the directors of the winning films.--Cheetah (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? This format has been used by many recent FLs, namely the numerous Hugo awards tables, where nominees are listed on single lines alongside winners, with winners denoted in colour and with a symbol. This allows the nominees to be sorted instead of bunching them all into a single cell. I don't think this is a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I am going to list the remaining issues:

1. I suggest to rename the "nominees" column to "composers".
2. Write a note explaining that in the "year" column, the year indicates the period for which the awards are given and not the year the ceremony took place in.
3. The "film" and current "nominees" columns sort incorrectly and need fixing.--Cheetah (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1,2 are fixed; as for 3 I am not sure why you think the table sorts incorrectly. Could you name an example?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 09:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Certainly in Firefox, the numerical titles aren't sorting correctly, they always appear at the top (and sort within themselves). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    • done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 10:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good so far, is there a reason why the Globe ceremonies aren't linked on every line, just to the winners? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, I was just too lazy to link them all :P. Anyway, they are all linked now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Good work GOP. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Yeah, good work, GOP. Thanks for your contribution.--Cheetah (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The first Golden Globe for Best Original Score went on Max Steiner...". "on" → "to"?
• "John Williams is the artist with most nominations". Add "the" before "most"?
• Remove "the" from "founder of the Nine Inch Nails"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • done, thanks.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [2].

---

List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes

Notified:WikiProject Anime and manga

Notified late:NocturneNoir (talk · contribs) Goodraise 15:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the sources are inadequate and that this list no longer means FL standards. Source 1 is outdated and the source for the airdates is linked to a steaming website which I do not believe is reliable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Malkinann (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The first reference is a dead link. SurfTheChannel does not seem reliable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments The Wayback Machine only has an archive of the now-dead webpage when it was "under construction", so a new source needs to be found. I am somewhat dubious of SurfTheChannel. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment what's happening here? There's been no consensus either way registered since the nomination, around three weeks ago. If nothing changes in the next couple of days, this will be close as no consensus to delist. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue. I already stated that I find surf the channel unreliable and the general reference is gone. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

New link for general reference: http://www.olm.co.jp/en/olm/work/1998/ G.A.S^talk 10:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Any alternatives avaliable to the one questionable website? This is a serious concern which should be addressed while this is here. I do not think so or I was unable to find it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC) WOWOW doesn't need multiple links in the lead. Episode 8: "Urd self-multiples to form an army". Should "self-multiples" be "self-multiplies"? You'd probably have to have seen the show to know if "self-multiples" is terminology used in it. Episode 10: "Urd notices Gan-chan's ring has and asks if she can have it." Something's clearly missing from this sentence. Episode 24: "They sell tickets for the show and fix a mistake on the posters." Before this sentence, we don't know about the show or the posters, while the sentence implies that they've already been mentioned. Episode 35: Missing "to" in "who tries detain them." Episode 48: "so the goddesses have a picnic and to which they invite Gan-chan." The "to which they" is a redundancy in the writing that begs to be removed. The all caps in "BOX" in the title of reference 9 should be taken out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Adventures_of_Mini-Goddess_episodes&action=historysubmit&diff=428192341&oldid=427723379 by various users. G.A.Stalk 04:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I've asked the nominator to revisit as concerns over the references appear to have been sorted and Giants' issues on prose etc seem to have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I still believe reference 15 (Surfthechannel) to be unreliable. If there are oppositions to this, I remove my nomination. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Reference 2[3] seems to verify the first and last release dates. But is that sufficient? G.A.S^talk 14:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Very well, but Surfthechannel has to be removed, as it links to copyrighted video streams. Assuming allcnima.net is reliable and the general dates sourced meets FL criteria, I will drop my nomination. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 14:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reference replaced. G.A.S^talk 15:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, referencing the first and last dates is not enough. Goodraise 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I thought as much but its been too long and no consensus has been reached. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoo, missed the party. The airdates are impossible to source, by the way. I've scoured the entirety of the internet. Unless you're going to cite the episodes themselves (is that even allowed?). Alternately, I think Hulu has airdates (different ones than the ones listed) if that's reliable. Will say that I'm not at all interested in maintaining this list though, sorry. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 05:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Found something:- [4] (Press more for episode details); but is the page reliable? G.A.S^talk 05:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe it is but it would be better to ask editors that can recognize reliable sources better. It seems to me the information on that site could have been taken from wikipedia. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That danger exists with just about any source. That the information might stem from Wikipedia, doesn't make it unreliable. Unfortunately, sources aren't reliable by default. The site is commercial... Can anyone say more about it than that? Goodraise 20:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm stopping my nomination since no consensus have been reached so far. Its off my list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can find this information in various magazines I have, but it will have to wait until June. I don't have time to look up the information right now. Can you wait until the first week in June? I do find it absurd that everyone is so hung up on this extremely minor point, though, as I would consider this somewhat common knowledge for anyone who was living in Japan at the time (as I was). This information can be found in any tv guide of the time (which are very hard to come by anymore) as well as in any anime magazine which listed airdates for shows at that time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I was scanning the featured lists in the anime and manga project for lists that do not meet FL criteria due to poor referencing or other things. I don't see the harm in sending this list to FLRC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand the desire to have well-cited sources, but are airdates really controversial? With such non-controversial stuff, I really believe in innocent 'til proven guilty... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 08:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Questionable sources should never be used. It's not a question of guilt. It's a question of credibility. Our credibility. I don't demand for every claim in every article to be cited (even though that would be desirable). But it's different with featured content. Featured content needs to set the right example. Remove the questionable sources and have the article delisted, and you won't hear another word from me. But an article at FLC or FLRC should not be shown any leniency. Doing so would not be in the encyclopedia's best interest. Goodraise 18:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, if we can get commitment from Nihonjoe that he'll have the data and add it to the list in the next couple of weeks, I don't see a problem. If this commitment doesn't materialise, or if we can't find a mutually acceptable solution, we'll need to close this out as delisted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, I can do it in June, but not before. I'm too busy until then. I still disagree with Goodraise that every airdate needs to be cited as that's overkill, IMNSHO. As long as we know when the series aired (beginning and ending), I don't see a need to cite every single airdate. Again, overkill, but if he's refusing to stop being pedantic about it, I'm fine with fulfilling his pedantic desires. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That's most gracious of you. Goodraise 11:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Update please, it's now mid-June. If we don't get the requested sourced material, we'll have no much choice other than to delist which would be a real shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be patient. I'm almost done with what I need to finish before I can do this. It should be about a week before I can begin checking the various magazines which should have the info. I agree with you that delisting simply because every single episode airdate doesn't have a reference would be a real shame. Really stupid, IMNSHO. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been patient, we're now seven weeks or so into this FLRC with no activity for some time. I just wanted an update. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you've been patient. If you decide to have someone close it, though, I think that will be a bit extreme. The sources exist, but I just haven't had the time to go to a storage unit and look them up. The magazines I have list all of the new anime showing in Japan for the month of the issue, so you can rest assured they exist. It will be about a week before I can get them for you, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I should be grabbing the issues I need within the next couple days. I will have the plethora of references soon. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Goodraise and DragonZero, I've supplied the references. Got any other complaints? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As an editor who expects perfection from featured content, I'm sure there'll be something else for me to complain about in the future, just not right now. Your efforts are very much appreciated. I'm still puzzled, though. I simply cannot understand your apparent anger over this. If adding these references was such a bother, then why doing it at all? You could've just ignored the request and nothing of consequence would have happened. FLRC is, after all, not AfD. Goodraise 08:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not angry, just somewhat annoyed as I don't think every airdate should need a reference. I just think that's overkill, and your insistence on having a reference for each individual airdate goes far beyond normal referencing requirements for featured anything, in my opinion. As someone else pointed out above, airdates are not controversial, and not something which would normally be questioned. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in any case, thanks for the work Joe. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Nice list again thanks to Nihonjoe. However, could you add the ISSN of Animage (if it doesn't have one, then add the OCLC). Also, "Tokyo" is sufficient for location, rather than "Tokyo, Japan". Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, it doesn't have an ISSN (there isn't one on the cover as far as I can tell), and I don't know how to find the OCLC. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [5].

---

List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients

Notified: Kumioko, WP:MILHIST, WP:BIO

I anticipate this to be a problematic candidate but here are the issues I found:

• the intro is completely inadequate; not only it is short, but it talks about racial discrimination... when being Jewish has nothing to do with race

Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• the first two sections are curiously not very well linked with eachother, which points towards the real problem:

Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• this list is OR, because while it lists individuals who received the award, the Jewish part is debatable at least. There have been some AfDs a few months ago with regards to "list of Jews" type ones, and the major issue was that while somebody may be able to show their ancestry, there is nothing in terms of references to show that these people practice Jewish customs, or eve care about their ancestry.

Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Race is a more clear-cut division, but ethnicity, and especially Jewish ones, are extremely tricky. Yeah, such a list could be featured, but this one in specific is nowhere near close at not raising some eyebrows.

Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Nergaal correctly identifies his nomination as problematic. He would do well, if in his personal subjective opinion is that the lede would be better if made longer (his very first bullet), to follow wp:sofixit, as long as his edits conform with consensus. I'll be happy to work with him in that regard. His second bullet is not an issue for here either. His third bullet is baseless -- if he were right, we would not have any references to Jews on wikipedia at all ... whether or not that is his preference, that is not how wp operates, as he may be aware if he has been involved in discussion of these issues elsewhere. His fourth bullet -- Tricky, tricky ... -- fails for the same reason as the third bullet. The third and fourth bullets are reminiscent of the arguments he raised that were rejected in his failed deletion effort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and should fail here for the same reason that they failed there.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's put it blunt then: how is this list featured, when for there is absolutely no reference provided for either of the entires that these people actually identify themselves as Jewish. Who declares them Jewish? Wikipedia? Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment For all but three of the recipients this source [6] lists them as Jewish recipients of the medal of honour, so I don't think its OR. Bob House 884 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that source authoritative enough to declare them Jewish? Nergaal (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from Kumioko

While I disagree that this list lacks the qualities necessary to be a Featured list I think some of your comments have some merit and I will work to improve the list over the next couple days. I do disagree that its OR. There are references for each of the individuals that identify them as being Jewish and I will try and incorporate them. I will also try to make the sections flow a little better as is the case of some of the other recipient lists. I partially disagree about the comments relating to the race and ethnicity. There has been quite a lot of documentation regarding persecution and prejudice towards Jews and regardless of whether its a racial issue or not I think the separation into its own list is fair. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs some work for FA - Will this help??Moxy (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Brody, Seymour (2003), Jewish heroes & heroines of America: 151 true stories of Jewish American heroism, Frederick Fell Publishers, ISBN 0883910268 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
• Scharfstein, Sol (1997), Chronicle of Jewish History: From the Patriarchs to the 21st Century, KTAV Pub. House, p. 320, ISBN 0881255602 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
• McTernan, John P (2008), As America Has Done to Israel, Xulon Press, p. 72, ISBN 9781600345456 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)

Thanks that helps a lot. I also noticed there are a couple dead links for census info so I will get those fixed as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get an update on this nomination please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say update, what would you like to know. I have already made a few fixes and I just got the Book by Brody in the Mail so I can start looking through that for referencable material. --Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand you're doing what you need to do which is good, I wanted to know from the nominator how he felt too. We can't have an FLRC hanging around for too long. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - rightyho, been another couple of weeks, no further feedback from Nergaal or Kumioko. If I hear nothing in the next day or so, I'll close this as no consensus to demote (i.e. keep). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Delist – I'd like to see some more work on this list before the FLRC closes. There are a few issues that should at least be looked at, the one tag in particular. I'm very uncomfortable letting a list with a tag keep FL status. Obviously the dead link must be addressed. The good news is that a replacement for old Census statistics shouldn't be too hard to locate. done --Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I'd be interested in knowing if there are any copyright concerns from the size of some of these quotes in the table. A couple of them go for 8–10 sentences. I like the idea of having quotes, but how much is too much? There are no copyright issues. All are in the Govt domain. I will shorten some though. --Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC) The direct quote in the second first paragraph needs a cite. Done - I removed this completely as I saw it as unnecessary and removing it did not adversely affect the article. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC) I still see it. It's in the second sentence of the lead. Was this in reference to the comment below? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Now I think I got it. I also added it to the body since it shouldn't be in the lede if its not in the body somewhere. Let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Would you mind citing the quote in the lead? I don't insist on people using references in the lead too often, but a direct quote is one of the things that should be cited in a lead section. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Second paragraph of the American Jews section also needs citations. The lead says "at least 18 American Jews" received the medal, but the Medal of Honor section says 21. What's with the difference? By the way, I count only 20 in the table. Is anyone missing? Done The 18 represents the fact that the exact number of recipients is unsure. Different refs state different numbers between 18 and 20 as reflected in the notes. I have clarified and corrected the numbers in the article.--Kumioko (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I agree with the nominator that the lead is short. Two small paragraphs is quite thin for an FL nowadays. It should be possible to beef it up with some more info from the two sections of prose, or some summary details from the table. Note 3: Why is "Household" capitalized? Also, the book title should be italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

delist

• "This along with the *..." reads poorly and is very unclear

Can you clarify what your saying here I don't understand. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• intro is entirely insufficient: far too short and not very well written

Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• American Jews: choppy (However, it may be as high as 6,444,000 (2.2%).) Why is US contrasted with Israel? Why not Canada or another demographically similar country. Last half is missing refs.

Comment: the US is contrasted with Isreal only because they have the highest number of Jews. If Russia or Canada had the most I would have used them. Thats the only reason. Even then I only did it to emphasize the point about the size of the Jewish population in America as ademographic percentage as compared to the rest of the world. I might be able to locate some stats on some of the others, maybe who's next behind the US or something but I'm not sure if this article would benefit from that level of granularity. --Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandman888 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all, there's a lot of good comments here. Still trying to get all the refs together. Sorry its taking so long. I have some of them now and should be able to start making some of the mentioned improvements soon. I understand though if it gets delisted. I've got a lot on my plate at the moment and I don't know exactly how long it will take to make all the changes.

One question though. Can someone take a look at this reference and tell me if its suitable. If nothing else it has a lot of refs listed that I can use...books and such. --Kumioko (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - as Kumioko is still working on this, I'm prepared to keep the nomination going a little longer. Please, if you can help, do help. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being so patient. Sorry its taking so long. I also sent out a couple of requests for some photos so hopefully Ill get those back sometime soon. --Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I should be done in another day or so. I just need t add more details to the WWII and American Civil War sections. Then I can expand the lede and rewrite the American Jew and MOH sections a bit. I should be done by Friday at the latest. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Comments: this list has been improved considerably, IMO, since the beginning of this review. Good work. I would like to make the following comments/suggestions for improvement (most are minor style issues, which are suggestions only):
  • the lead needs work. It seems a bit choppy, i.e. one sentence doesn't seem to flow into the next. My suggestion would be to start by describing what the MoH is and then talk about how many Jewish Americans have received it. You might include a lit bit more detail here too, for instance maybe list the first and last recipients to represent the spread;

Your right. I hadn't really gotten to this yet. I was building up the rest of it and then I will expand the lede. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• • the second paragraph in the "American Jews and the Medal of Honor" section probably needs a citation: "the ultra-Orthodox Haredi communities to Jews who live a secular lifestyle";

Your right here. I am going to do some other work on this section too. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• • in the American Civil War section, this sentence possibly needs to be rewritten: "After the Medal of Honor was created through the present 1522 Received the Medal for actions during the American Civil War...";

Your right here. I am going to do some other work on this section too. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Notes fields in the tables, some of the sentences end in full stops, but others don't. Should this be consistent?
    • Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • there seems like a bit of overlinking. For instance in the Korean War section Tibor Rubin is linked three times (four if you include the table). Also in the citations "United States Center for Military History" is linked a lot. Is that necessary?;
    • Done I think. --Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Citation # 1 "Thornton, 1990" - is there a page number?

On this one the whole book discusses the various wars and campaigns and the effects of them from the time columbus landed until the early 1900s. With the statement I made about it be a series of wars throughout that time period I couldn't think of a way to show hte page numbers without showing 10 or 12 different page numbers. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. My understanding is that it is okay to quote a whole work in this way. Another possibility might be to provide a large page range, but either is probably fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Citation # 16 "Brands, 1997, pp.756" - is there a second page number (i.e the "pp" makes it look like it should be a page range);

Done - thanks. Its just the one page number as far as I can tell --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Citation # 28 "Rausch, 1996" - is there a page number?
  • in the General references, are there publisher, location and ISBN details for the Boritt work;

Done --Kumioko (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • in the General references section, should the works be organised alphabetically by author's surname? Currently they are not;

done --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • is there an ISBN or OCLC number for the Hermes work?

done there was an LCCN. --Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• • is there a location of publishing for the Hermes work?

done Washington DC --Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• • the capitalisation of the titles seems inconsistent. I believe that they should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. Cheers,

AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the titles of the References or the titles of the people (ie Sergeant, SSgt, etc.)--Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I mean the titles of the References (books). Sorry, I realise now that my comment was a bit indistinct. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the caps are fixed now too. --Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not especially familair with Judaism, the MoH or FL, but I was just passing by. I tightened a sentence and removed a pair of square brackets that had gone astray and thought I'd make the briefest of comments here. I would think there's room for expansion of the lead a little and the brief mention of the MoH and religious discrimination left me wanting—it would be nice if there were more to say, perhaps examples of other Jews who are thought to have been denied the MoH because of their religion. Perhaps something on anti-Semitism in the US military (without getting too distracted from the topic of the MoH). This is just a drive-by comment, not a real review, but if you need me to revisit it, ping my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment and your absolutely right. I intend to expand the lede some more and add a couple more things in the next couple days. I am trying to get some of the missing images and am looking through some references to see if there are any more missing or if they are mentioned anywhere else. I hope to wrap this FL up by this weekend. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. I have a passing personal knowledge of MoH. The article seems to speculate or emphasize the view that low number of Jewish MoHs was related to anti-Semitism, but this is really not well proven or established scholarship. We should be more neutral here. Also the Jewish Virtual Library (webpage) is a poor source.TCO (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am in favor of a list on Jewish MoHs, think there are enough of them, glad they are honored for their heroism, think we can work around definitional kvetches on ethnicity versus religion by use of appropriate notes and/or discussion in article. Just don't like the implicit Wiki-editorializing. We should play it more down the middle. If someone really wants to make a structured, argument that the MoH was systematically unfair, then write it up to professional standards and put it in a historical journal. We are not the right place for that sort of thing and peer review will look at it more thoughtfully anyway and allow debate at a high level. (And no, Jewish Virtual Library webpage is not what I mean by an academic journal.) TCO (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try and tone it down a bit. I still need to expand the lede a bit and fix a few other minor things. I am also going to try and replace some of the lesser grade references like the one you mention and the Mishelov one. I don't really even like the home of Heroes so I will probably move that to external links. With that said I do think that there have been a couple specific cases of anti semitism such as the case of Tibor Rubin. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If Rubin was noteworthy for his late medal (and it sounds it) then we should definitely cover this aspect. I would clean up the "who many believe" (which who? vagueness is used to allow making an implicit statement by the writer). I would not generalize from that case to some general view that Jews are poorly treated in US Military for medal awards unless this is well established and agreed on. TCO (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that much work has been done on the list in the last couple of weeks. Given that this has been at FLRC for almost two months now, we need to see some progress soon or this will have to be closed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delist - I do have some concerns about using race in the context of this list, and I would definitely like to see an actual link to the 1993 Army study that's mentioned in at least two places (in line with TCO's comments above). In the historical period covered by the list, discrimination existed against a number of groups, some based on race and in other cases based on national origin (I'm thinking here of the Irish, but the focus changed with each wave of immigration). At this point I just don't think the case for a separate list is strong enough.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of trying to get the 1993 and 1996 surveys because I agree. They are not available online as far as I can find but I have been asking around for them. I understand if you need to delist it although it would be very disappointing. Aside from these surveys I will try and get in and expand the lead a bit in the next couple days. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to some information on the study (sorry if you've seen it already): http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/mohb.html. The study seems to focus mostly on African-American stuff. And a link to a preview of the study as published in 1997: link Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, yes there were actually 2 different studies. One targetted Jewish and Asian Americans and the second targetted African Americans. --Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from personal feelings and concerns about the a race/religion associated list and aside from the fact that I still have not been able to get the actual studies (I'm still working on it) I think I have addressed all the concerns identified above. The list has been massively rewritten even locating references with recipients that weren't there before and have now been added. Comparing the Current version to the version before we started here I feel like we have improved the article/list to the point were it can maintain its FL status. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 23:14, 8 June 2011 [7].

---

List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

Notified: Gonzo fan2007, WikiProject Green Bay Packers, WikiProject National Football League

This list was promoted in July 2008, well before 3b was made part of the FL criteria. As almost all of the list's contents can be found at List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, I believe this violates that criterion. A similar page, List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, was rejected recently at FLC for the same reason. It's a shame in some ways since the list itself is in reasonable shape, but old FLs shouldn't get a free pass when standards change. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have no reservations towards delisting this FL if the community feels that it is an unnecessary fork of a larger list. I obviously have not been here for quite sometime and things have changed somewhat, so I will not be arguing for or against past issues ;) I do want to say that it troubles me that this list would be delisted merely because of the "unnecessary" part of 3b. When does a fork become necessary? How many players would need to get into the Hall of Fame for it to become necessary to create smaller lists based on teams? How many Packers would need to be in the Hall for a separate article to become necessary? Lastly, I also see this as a very practical issue for our readers, as I am sure many people ask google Who the Green Bay Packers Hall of Famers are and thankfully Wikipedia is able to provide a high quality list that specifically answers their question, and does not contain additional info that is not relevant. Also, is there going to be an AFD for this list and its siblings too, since they may be deemed "unnecessary"? Well that is my 2 cents, hope everyone is doing well! Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delist per 3b. To answer Gonzo, I would say if a section fills up more than a page (my screen is 1000px), it should be split from the main article. It also depends on what the section is about. If you search Vancouver Canucks captains, the first choice is obviously the Vancouver Canucks Wikipedia article. It also has a "jump to", which allows you to jump to the "Team captains" section of the article. AFD isn't necessary because the article will be redirected to the section of the main article. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep It does not violate 3b as it is not unnecessary. Well, I made a similar list long time ago about the Dodgers and recently it went to AFD: the list was kept. As a result of that AFD the most recent consensus is these lists are necessary.
  RE K. Annoyomous: It's going to take a long time to find all Packers in the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees. There's no section for "Green Bay Packers" in that list.
  P.S. Welcome back, Gonzo! --Cheetah (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Main article is the Green Bay Packers. My apologies on that confusion. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cheetah, although this is just a temporary break ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment To expand a little, my main issue is that this list has a defined scope, is large enough (26 items), has a good possibility to expand in the future (Brett Favre comes to mind), and seems like a pretty necessary and logical fork of the main list. I feel like as long as there are no other issues, this list should be Kept (altho I am biased as the creator of the list ;). I imagine we will need a few more opinions tho to find a consensus. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't see a major issue here. The Packers article is huge and really could use shortening. The only thing I would prefer to see is more in the lead about the players, and less about the Packers' franchise. Then it's just technical issues (if any, perhaps check ref 12 for dead-ness) to worry about, I've already done the dashes...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the link. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Don't want to badger any of the commenters, but TRM among others agreed with my 3b oppose at the FLC for the Bears list, which is longer than this one and also has a lengthy main article. Why was that list considered a fork and not this one? If I'd nominated the Bears list I'd be thinking that I got a raw deal. Also, I don't see where necessity fits into 3b (the content already being reasonably included in the main Hall of Famers list goes right at the last part of the criterion) and don't necessarily think AfD should be a measuring stick (how many people there are thinking about FL criteria when they decide a list's fate?). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, perhaps I'm confused then. That article was rejected as FL on grounds of 3b vs the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees article. I was judging this article against the main Packers article, as I noted in my comment. There seem to be a number of "main" articles here, hence the confusion perhaps? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A reasonable length spinout of the article which is not considered a content fork per the criteria (a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage). The Bears list was handled wrong in the previous discussion. Royalbroil 04:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and note that, IMO, we got the Bears list wrong in relation to 3b. Courcelles 01:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.