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 promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [1].

---

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured list because it's the next in my service academy alumni set and it's ready for review. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC) a[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for now "...who is considered to best exemplify the creed of "Duty, Honor, Country"." should be cited. working — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Actually, a few more of the claims in the lead should be cited really. working — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] "The billet carries..." is the billet you link to the one you want? No, and wiki has no appropriate one. Changed to "position". — Rlevse • Talk • # col doesn't sort correctly. Because of the acting dude. USMA considers 1 and 2, though the same person, to be two assignments. Not sure what can be done here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Have a look at the ((sort)) template. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nor does Start or End. Because someone added month and day, removed. Not sure what can be done on the incumbent. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Again, try the ((sort)) template. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Still doesn't work for me, under Safari on Mac OS X. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]  Works for me on Firefox. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Interesting. You don't get it sorting four different ways Julian? Doesn't work for me under Firefox for Mac OS X either. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Works for me in FF on WinXP. TRM, must be that strange OS you use, haha. Gadget850 used the template you said to use and I don't know of anything else to try here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] You guys win. Until Apple take over the world, I can't oppose on their superior browser and OS. IE7 works fine. Thanks for everyone's efforts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] ROFL, just give up, Apple and MACs will never take over! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mercedes-Benzes haven't taken over the world, but why would you drive a Trabi when you could drive a Benz? Tony (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] What does a blank Class year mean? They are not a USMA alum. The early Supes had no USMA to graduate from — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Have you made a note to this effect so other readers don't need to ask you the same question? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hyphens creep in for year ranges, check 'em. Will ask for a bot run. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 1951-02-24 - make English please. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] "(133-1937)" that's one ancient coach...! Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Enough to start with... Ready for more when you are. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - good work, but one final question - "Chief of Staff of the Army (1968–1–72)" - what does that date mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs considerable work. Support now—it's much improved. I wanted more fleshing out of the topic in the lead, but the link now to "Academy leadership" does it pretty well. Tony (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the need for citations, and please remember that many readers are not American, and may be unfamiliar with the notion of "president of an American civilian university. (Is it, as I once heard, like President and Congress?) "Historically, the Superintendency was often a stepping stone to higher prominence within the Army." Maybe I haven't read it carefully enough, but is this claim supported in the lead or table? And is there another article section that could be linked to about this? (Only if useful to the readers, though.) Need to cover it somehow, even though I have no reason to disbelieve the claim at the moment.

tweaked this — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've pluralised "officer" to avoid the gender-specificity. Women have more power in the military now, yes?

True, but no woman has been Supe of USMA, so in reality the wording was correct. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of correct or incorrect, but of avoiding the implication that the position is either (i) naturally occupied by a male; or (ii) will always be occupied by a male. The gender of the previous incumbents is irrelevant. Besides, there's another reason to use the plural form: it's a list, which is plural by its very nature. Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Goodpaster: is that an example? If so, can you make this exemplification clear to the readers?

An example of what? What are you talking about.? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What are you talking about?" comes over as snippy. Do you mean to respond in that way to well-meaning comments? Here is the passage:

The billet carries the rank of lieutenant general, and is not counted against the Army's statutory limit on the number of active-duty officers above the rank of major general. General Andrew J. Goodpaster originally retired from active duty as a full general, was recalled to assume the superintendency as a lieutenant general, and reverted to his four-star rank upon his second retirement.

The two sentence do not flow logically: is the second an example of the "non counted" aspect? Unless he was the only example, you could fix this simply by adding "For example, General ...".

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Notability" texts need a copy-edit. "was" elected". Do you need "(did not resign)"? Certainly not twice; vacated is pretty clear, isn't it?

Once again, Tony, you expect people to read your mind. I do not copyedit the way you do. Please be specific. Also not list notabiltiy sections are not written in standard prose format. — Rlevse • Talk •

The prose within the chart itself seems fine to me. In my opinion, the text shouldn't have to be perfect when the goal is to provide a brief description. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Tony is mixing apples and oranges, lists are essentially bulleted summaries, not prose. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not expecting a brow-beating for well-meant comments. Was I being aggressive?

You are both confusing brevity (technically "short texts") with some kind of release from the need to write well. Whether bulleted or newspaper headine or book title or picture caption, the language needs to be correct and of a professional standard (Criterion 1). In the "Notability" section, the grammar is wrong in several ways, and makes the reading harder. So, the first one is this:

"Colonel; Williams vacated (he did not resign) the post of Superintendent in June 1803; returned to the Superintendency in April 1805; elected to the Fourteenth United States Congress". Try this:

"Colonel; he vacated (rather than resigned) in June 1803, returning to the Superintendency in April 1805; elected to the Fourteenth United States Congress in 1815."

So may I suggest that the incumbent's name not be repeated here (we've just read it half a second before, to the left). We know perfectly well what post he vacated, so it's unnecessary to specify (although perhaps the return to it needs to be explicated, as you've done). Why not give us the year of his Congressional office? You've done this for Wadsworth's later invention, directly below. All of the Notability notes need to be audited for smoothness and brevity; I may be able to do a few more as examples, if you wish. BTW, my example of "was" elected was not good—it's fine as it is. "his administration was noted as being unsatisfactory and negligent to duties"—As soon as there is "was noted as", the readers deserve to know who noted. Is "to duties" not redundant in this tight context? Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Any specific examples to improve the list are appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability column a bit speckledy with repeat links. No big deal, but WW I and WW II may not need linking so many times. "General" and "Major general" ... mmmm ... any way they could be referred to and linked to in the lead, once, rather than repeated in the table? Seems important to the big picture, which as an outsider I find just a little hard to grasp.

This is another case where reviewers need to agree on what the standard is. Some agree with you some say "repeat links in a sortable list". I'm doing it the way I've done my other recent FLs and I'm not going to switch the method every article. I'm sticking with one method until the time and if the list reviewers ever come out with a stable rule on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said: "No big deal", because I recognised that there is no standard rule and didn't want you to think I asserting that. You responded by telling reviewers what they need to do. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my rider. Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• En dash for ranges ... 1931–32.

Will ask for a bot to run through this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good pics, nicely nestled in at the side (unlike the jostle factor in many lists). How many of them are unfindable?

Go look. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I compliment with "good pics" and you tell me brusquely to "go look". It was an innocent question as to whether you had fully researched the Commons or elsewhere, since the pics are good. BTW, it's hard to locate the subject of each pic, since you have to sort the names column into alpha order. Would it be possible to add the years of their terms in parentheses in the captions, for easy location? (1929–32). But I'm expecting a brow-beating for suggesting this; perhaps I'll be told "You do it your way; I'll do it my way". Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made that remark because "How many of them are unfindable?" is snippy and insinuating in a negative way. That being said, we got off on the wrong foot here so let's let be water under the bridge and restart okay? Later today I will the terms in captions if you still want, but did you notice the pics are in the order they served as supe? — Rlevse • Talk •

• OK—I'll try to do a few; you'll need to check them. Capital S for "superintendent". I'm too distracted to go look at the Naming MOS, but I'd have thought the generic usage would have a lower-case s. Unsure. Tony (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added caption dates. I asked about the "S" and didn't get a solid answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Feeling that the lead needs to be beefed up (something's missing), I clicked on the link to USMA and, hey presto, it's what is much more commonly known as "West Point". I do think this FL should be a little more of a stand-alone article, such that the reader doesn't have to hunt down basic information via links, to understand the topic. There's also a section largely devoted to the superintendent within that article, and I wonder whether a piped section-link to that location might appear somewhere here. I prefer the link to "president of a university" in that location to the link to the much broader "university" here (of questionable value to the reader). In the table, interesting info appears about curriculum development and other such themes, so would it be possible to position the superintendent with just a little detail in relation to the institution? Does the s. have control over curriculum, training, etc? Is the s. the chair of whatever board sits over the institution? And upwards, to whom is the s. answerable to, next in the chain? For all readers but the most familiar with the structures and institution at issue, such info would remove that "something is missing" feeling ... it's kind of hard to jump into the list without this orientation, and get the best out of the table. A few more key sentences might lift it. Tony (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check now. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need checking

I must confess I only clicked on one image. And you may be incredibly unlucky in the sample result, but it was File:2003-31625.jpg, which actually makes this list fail 5b. Because I'm short of time, and you know what is required of the images, can I request that you check through all of them. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted that one. Did some minor fixes on others, which all appear okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they still need checking. For example the first 2 images of superintendents both have deadlink sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have to go down the deadlink hole again? Those two images are also about 150 years old. Are you claiming a copyright is in effect still? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search reveals Willams on USMA site and as for Swift, it's listed as US Army, has all the looks of an Army portrait and why can't we have some AGF here? This is precisely what got the whole PD Review thing started. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right. I was doing a bad job of rushing an image review, for which I apolgise. I will AGF on the first 7, because they are "old enough". File:Gen Garrison Davidson West Point Superintendent 1956 1960.jpg is fine, but I haven't PD reviewed it as it isn't on Commons (not sure why). Of the newer images that weren't PD reviewed, I have put together relevent info. and reviewed them. The others you'd already done. I have noticed the IfD on the logo, but looking at the comments don't see it being a problem. Declaring these images okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "within " Can simply be "in".
• "However, in the modern era" Ambiguous, what is "The modern era"?
• "they will be retired at the end of their appointment. " I think you mean "they will retire".
• I'd appreciate just a couple inline citations in the lead, maybe at the end of paragraphs. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and FYI looking for more refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• TIME-->Time.
• Ref 18 needs format=PDF.

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk)

Question - If the first two superintendents were not alumni of West Point, why is the article titled "List of USMA alumni (Superintendents)" rather than "List of USMA Superintendents"? Geraldk (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a complete list of supes. This was discussed and agreed upon back in the beginning. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why it makes sense to include them, for completeness and all. But it means that the article title is not accurate. It's no longer a list of USMA alumni who were superintentendants, it's now a list of all USMA superintendants, most of whom happen to be alumni. Geraldk (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also those who argue faculty are alums. We have other alum lists that have faculty that weren't students at the school. See the naval academy alum lists, which are already FLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two comparable articles are titled List of Superintendents of the United States Naval Academy and List of Superintendents of the United States Air Force Academy. Geraldk (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, in addition, the wiktionary definition of alumnus is... 1.a male pupil or student, 2. a male graduate, 3. a student, 4. a graduate Geraldk (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, this all came up when we started working on this series and no one else had a problem with it. I appreciate your opinion but I honestly think this isn't a big deal having notable faculty in them. Dozens have people have reviewed these various lists and think it's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per conversation above, specifically concerns related to Wikipedia: Naming conventions. Article titles should take the simplest and most recognizable possible form without being ambiguous, as well as the most descriptive of the actual content of the article, and the current article title does not meet either. Geraldk (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is against consensus and several articles, not just the service academy lists that are already FLs. For example, your cited defition does not allow for fictional alumni and many of these FLs have fictional alums. There are also others with alum in the title that list faculty. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see on the talk page where there is consensus, and lists having been approved as featured in the past with mistakes is no reason to allow this one to pass with one as well. Why, if I may ask, do you think the current title is better than the original 'List of United States Military Academy superintendents'? Geraldk (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the faculty discussion was on another list in this series when we started working on them. If you're going to apply your interpretation of the matter, do so equally and not single out one list, ie, get all the others fixed, the logical result of the line of reasoning is not including those with fictional alums. Fictional people are not actual alums, so that shouldn't be in those lists either. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At some point soon, I think we'll be down to text about one letter wide with all these indents... With the fictional alumni issue, the definition of alumni doesn't forbid their inclusion because an article title of alumni doesn't specify whether the alumni are actual or fictional. And yes, other lists which are titled alumni and include faculty who aren't need to be renamed. But if in addition to raising this issue with this nomination, I had gone around moving every other article that has the same problem, including some you've nominated in the past, you'd be even more annoyed at me than you are now. I'm not trying to be an ass, but it is a fundamental issue with an otherwise excellent list. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say fictional is included either--so they're, so if you're going to be a strict interpreter of the rules, at least be CONSISTENT with it. You can't say "this doesn't cover X so it's out" then say "this doesn't cover Y so it's in". You're being contradictory. So have you moved to clean all them up yet or are you only after this list? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue you raise is not comparable. Again, my point is that this is a list of Superintendents, not a list of Alumni, and it should be named as such. Your argument would only apply if the lists you reference were titled "List of Real Alumni of X" and then included fictional alumni. If you disagree, that's perfectly fine, but you'll need to either convince me there is a strong reason for the title being the way it is or convince enough other FL reviewers that I'm wrong. In either case, I think you have yet to address the fundamental question, which is why you think the current article title is a better and more accurate title than "List of Superintendents of the United States Military Academy", which conforms with other similar lists of superintendents. As I said, it's a great list, it just has a title that doesn't conform to the naming conventions. Geraldk (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are totally comparable. And since everyone else is supporting this FLC, even after you brought this up, and given precedent of other FLs, right now it looks like you're in the minority. I think you're being overly pedantic. If someone besides you and I would weigh in, it'd help. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a history teacher, so being overly pedantic kind of comes with the territory. Happy to drop it if the majority of other reviewers here agree with you. Geraldk (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to mediate. (If you feel I have misrepresented either of your views I sincerely apologise, and please say so.) Firstly, Geraldk asks a legitimate question. Forgetting the other lists this basically boils down to whether or not we include faculty as alumni or not. The most strict definition of alumni would not include faculty as alumni (hence, Geraldk's suggestion of re-titling – I don't think removing the non-graduates is sensible) However, in my experience, I have come across its usage to include them. For example, this source defines alumni as including academic staff. I think we need to apply some common sense here. I do think this "topic" of lists should have a logical and consistent naming structure, and I'd be inclined to say that either name was fine. If we always used the most strict definitions then Andrea Lee Hollen (first female graduate) wouldn't appear on any alumni lists, because she is strictly an "alumna". Would we be concerned about the article title if a female were to be included? I think, like language variations, both can be right and somewhere a compromise needs to be reached. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, point taken. Will withdraw my opposition. Though, really, with a name like Rambo's Revenge, shouldn't you be handing us grenades and egging us on instead of trying to resolve things? Rambo himself would be ashamed. Geraldk (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald, if you're familiar with Naming Conventions, should it be an upper- or lower-case S for "superintendent" where used generically (most of the time on the page, I think). Tony (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) is that, because this is a specific office, it is capitalized. But, then, I'm not particularly knowledgable about grammar. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this bit? I'm being a pernickety nerd, though. Tony (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read that too. It's not entirely clear. We need to find a grammar genius to help us through that one. Comparable articles are unclear, the USNA and USAFA lists have it capitalized, but other lists with titles don't. It may be the distinction is between 'Superintendents of the USMA' and 'USMA superintendents'. Bah, I hate English, I'm gonna have to learn another language... Geraldk (talk) 18:39, 14 May 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.