Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alamo defenders/archive1

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 Giants2008 02:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [1][reply]

List of Alamo defenders[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Alamo defenders/archive1

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list is part of the Battle of the Alamo series of articles. Karanacs helped with cross-checking of sources, an intrinsic factor in making this list as accurate as possible without original research. For some in Texas where a family tree might claim an ancestor on either side of the battle, knowing who was inside the fortress is personal. For academics and other "Alamoheads" (as they call themselves), it has been more of an obsessive quest for 179 years. Each generation brings new methodologies to archival research, to reaffirm or debunk existing names on the list, and hoping to discover yet another defender.— Maile (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

I haven't looked at this in great depth, but one query. A casualty is defined as "a person killed or injured". But given that this list is split into casualties and survivors, are we to assume all those listed as casualty died? If so, shouldn't they be listed instead as fatalities? Harrias ^talk 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Good catch. I changed all of them. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support this article is looking is great shape, particularly after the changes suggested by PresN below. Harrias ^talk 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Wikilink Texian the first time you use it in the lead, since you don't explain the term and then link it later in "Identifying the combatants"
You introduce Lindley simply as Thomas Ricks Lindley; at least mention that they're a historian or whatever, even if you leave the mention of their book until the second mention
"Determining exactly who was inside the Alamo has been an ongoing historical quest. It is likely there will never be a definitive list." - the phrasing here is a bit editorializing
There's a lot of inconsistencies in the Notes column between whether you're using full sentences or sentence fragments; not only should this be consistent (I recommend fragments unless you have a multi-sentence note) but fragments should not end in a period. The "He" you occasionally use is especially off-putting, since most times you refer to the person in that row by their last name instead

Will work on this tomorrow when I have more time. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Done — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For sortable lists, you can't just link the "first" instance of something, because if you sort on a column which one is first changes. You'll need to link either everything or nothing in the Birthplace column
Denmark, Randers is backwards and redirects
Backwards city/states seems to be a thing you have; you should replace them with {{sort|state, city|[[city, state]]}} to get the sorting you want without having to flip the order
I find the split between this list and List of Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo, which is a subset of this list, kin of odd- shouldn't that one be merged into this one?

Well, no, they were never meant to be merged. The defenders list was created in January 2008, and is just that...only the ones who were armed and actively involved in the fighting. The survivors which Karanacs created in March 2008 and took to FL, was meant to be only the survivors and contains children and other civilian non-combatants. While I can't answer for Karanacs, it's clear she never meant the survivor list to be part of the defender list.— Maile (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I was in a hurry on a small screen and didn't realize that the survivor list included non-combatants. As such it's not a subset of this list, so never mind. --Pres N 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some errors in footnotes- missing space in 3, odd period after the page number in 6, missing space in 15, mucked up dash in 23, period again in 38 and 56, 67, 70, 72, etc (ctrl-f for ".;" for the rest), missing space in 83, 93, 113, 115, 122, etc, and you're really inconsistent on if a reference ends with a period after the page number or not

I'll deal with this tomorrow when I have more time. I need to have a good look at all of them.— Maile (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe I've caught all this, and am never likely to forget this as a learning curve. You have a very fine eye. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs are all inconsistent in your references- ISBNs should be (978-)1-4444-4444-1.

PresN - I need clarification on what you are saying. Are you saying they should all be 13-number ISBNs? Because not all ISBNs are 13 numbers - they just aren't. Even with the 13-number ISBNs, how the numbers are separated depends on where the book was published. In many, if not most, of the cases the ISBN numbers were taken directly from the book cover and is exactly like the publisher had them. I don't know about the parenthesis (978) you are using. It isn't inconsistency, unless I misunderstand you. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be ISBN13s; what I meant was that for, for example, in ref 2 you have the isbn as "978-1-55622-255-9": this should be "978-1-5562-2255-9". For ISBN10s, like ref 3, it should not be "0-938349-68-6", it should be "0-9383-4968-6". I'm looking it up now, and it seems like that's not actually a universal rule; that said, they should be consistent, and 1-4-4-1 was the way I was told was the correct pattern. I suppose you can pick whatever pattern you like best; it's a really, really minor thing that I would never consider opposing over, I just noticed they weren't consistent. --Pres N 00:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the style on iSBNs, it's one of those things at Wikipedia that triggers different opinions on different articles/reviews. Just for the heck of it, I know @Mr Stephen: uses AWB to clean up ISBN numbers. If he would like to run that on this article, I would have no objection. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. PresN:, the length of the fields varies, there isn't a simple 1-4-4-1 rule. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, guess I was wrong, then. --Pres N 13:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Square Enix video game franchises FLC up above. --Pres N 21:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:, I believe I have addressed all the issues you mentioned. Thank you in particular for your insight on the notes section and the citations. That helped me reduce the overall size of the article, and helped make me a better editor in the future. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Pres N 01:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Remember the Alamo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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