Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

List of notable Eagle Scouts[edit]

This list meets all of the criteria for a featured list. Images used in the article have been checked for the approriate useages. Clearly defined criteria for inclusion on the list is outlined on the Talk page. This is a self-nomination. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well researched. Comprehensive. Nice photos. --evrik ^(talk) 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The main reason being the lack on inline citations for each and every person. Have a look at the other FL of people (and the list of Telecaster players below) for how this can be done. I believe VegaDark is working on doing a similar transformation to List of Oregon State University people (currently in his own sandbox) – you might find it helpful to discuss with him due to the similarities of the lists. Other issues:
- Images CFJ3.jpg, William Hanna01.jpg, TIME Magazine Dec. 12, 2005.jpg, Ray Suarez.jpg and Samwalton.jpg are copyright and a fair use claim is not supportable for this list. They should be removed or a free alternative found.

Thanks- the images in question have been removed. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

The Gold Eagle.jpg icon should really be a PNG. Saving it as a JPG has made it fuzzy. Have a look at the Help on images. Its size is a little intrusive. Consider making it smaller or just use some other indicator, perhaps just a coloured text character such as a golden •.

How about this: ● --Gadget850 ( Ed)

Great. Colin°^Talk 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK- I changed the first section just to see how it looks. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this version? Its as small as I can get without losing the Eagle. I changed the B section of the article so we can compare. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with the 15px eagle. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources don't count as reliable. Personal (or local scout troop) web sites might be just about OK for the occasional citation here and there (where they give a bio for somebody for example) but the ones that have huge unsourced lists are not acceptable. NNDB is also not a reliable source, as it is largely reader-sourced. The official scouting web sites (.org addresses) are a better bet. Sorry if this means a lot of your names don't have reliable sources. Wikipedia is only as good as its foundation.

I removed NNDB- this is a known suspect source that I did not notice had creeped back in. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

The Troop 179 references are compiled from BSA information and are known to be reliable. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

So- we need a cite for each entry? We have ensured that each of the linked articles have a proper citation. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

Afraid so. See Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Oregon State University people/archive1 for a reason. I would think this applies to most {{dynamic list}}s, which need careful maintenance. A less open list such as List of Presidents of the United States, doesn't require this. See also Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Inline citations on lists of people after each name?.

Colin°^Talk 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK- we will work that. Every article has been carefully cited, so it is just a matter of copying those cites to the list. Many are going to be duplicated from one of the canonical lists, so that cuts a bit of work. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update 13 Nov 2006

DESA icon: We worked this and went with this: --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images: CFJ3.jpg should be OK- please take a look at the notes under the copyright tag.
Cites: These are now complete.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nearly there.

You need cites for all the incorrect names too. If you can't find some right now, move those to the talk page.
Your Troop & Pack 179 ref is repeated several times. Is it too long that it breaks wiki or do you just think it looks nicer in chunks? Some may think it devious to hide how often this ref is relied on ;-).
The statistics in the lead need citations.
The last sentence in the lead needs backing up with a good source - otherwise it just looks like your opinion.
It is a pretty long list, which makes it less interesting to browse IMO. I wonder if you would consider chopping it into chunks based on profession. E.g. Sports, Politics, Arts, Military, Astronauts, ... Then folk can get a feel for where these scouts ended up. Does anyone else think that's a good idea? It would be a bit of effort, but I think it might be worth it.

If you fix the citations, you've got my support (the grouping isn't a dealbreaker). Colin°^Talk 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the are so many using the T179 ref that it breaks wiki, so we had to break it up. I built that page from a official hard copy from BSA. I think it's better in alpha order, otherwise, you'd have to look at each topic to find someone whom you weren't familiar with.Rlevse 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the reference section in this older version, you will see that cite.php kinda blows up after the bz tag. Breaking it up was the only way I could figure to fix it- I welcome any other way to do this. The T179 reference is a known good cite, based on a compilation of BSA information. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead cites are complete.

I removed the last sentence as an unsourced opinion.

Splitting by profession... is Bill Bradley more famous as a basketball player or a politician? Most astronauts were/are military, many politicians were military. Many of the folks had multiple careers. I welcome any thoughts on this, but the only way I can see this is to split it into separate articles with a lot of overlap.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way would make it worse, just leave it as is, straight alphabetical. Rlevse 03:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think my serious objections have been addressed. Grouping has been done successfully on other people lists. I wouldn't get too worried if there is overlap. Just pick what you think it the natural group for what they were most notable for. Wrt finding someone you weren't familiar with: 1) If you don't know them well enough to know why they were famous, then why on earth would you be interested in whether they were an Eagle Scout and 2) All browsers have a Find feature. Colin°^Talk 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping- can you give me an example? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly object to grouping. Alphabetical makes far more sense to me. Colin's item one only makes sense for an educated adult--what about a young Scout just learning of his famous predecessors and goes on wiki to find out and for item two, we shouldn't have to find what group they were put in, just go to their name.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 November 2006.

Examples are List of people with epilepsy, List of HIV-positive people, List of notable brain tumor patients, and List of Oregon State University people (not yet featured and being extensively reworked on User:VegaDark's sandbox). I really don't buy the young Scout story. Nobody finds the telephone book fascinating, but it has a purpose if you already know the name and don't have a Find button. Why would this scout remember someone's name without being told why they are famous. Surely it would be more interesting for young/old to see how many astronauts, sports stars or politicans were once Eagle Scouts. This info is burried in a monolithic list. Grouping encourages research and learning since they will find other names who are famous for similar reasons, click on those links, etc, etc. Colin°^Talk 22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really don't buy your side either, so I guess we'll just have to disagree-;). See ya around wiki. Rlevse 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The format (alpha or by group) is really like rearranging deck chairs. I think it looks fine as it is. --evrik ^(talk) 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support pending these three notes being addressed. (1) Make it clearer on the talk page guidelines that an eagle scout notable enough for a Wikipedia article must be included in the list (assuming the fact that they are an Eagle can be sourced). (2) Consider converting it to a table format with name, birth-death dates, profession, date of Eagle award, etc. although this wouldn't jive well with the current picture scheme (this is just a suggestion). (3) Fix the title. Eagle Scout is a disambiguation page between several awards. Does this list include all Eagle Scouts or (I suspect) only BSA Eagle Scouts? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1- Changed may to should.

2- We had long discussions about going to a table format and the consensus was against.

3- Will think on this. Given the project standard, I reckon it should be List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

I put a move tag on the talk page for discussion. If there is no opposition, I will speedy this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider the first two concerns addressed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update 16 Nov 2006: The incorrect Eagles have now been cited. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent, well-documented list. Very informative. I vote for keeping it alphabetical and for adding (Boy Scouts of America) to the title. Sumoeagle179 02:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update 17 Nov 2006: The article has been moved to List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]