Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dartmouth College faculty

List of Dartmouth College faculty[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this article is all of two hours old, but I've (obviously) been working on it off-line for quite a while, and I think it meets the criteria: clearly-defined, rigorously cited, and well-organized. I cut my teeth in the nomination process for List of Dartmouth College alumni (discussion), and I've modeled the organization of this list after that one. I feel that it's ready. Kane5187 01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ I did wonder whether this list would appear here at some stage! I used the Dartmouth alumni list as the inspiration for improving List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford and I see that Walter H. Stockmayer is on both that list and this one, which is a happy coincidence. The DC faculty list is well set-out and shows that a lot of excellent work has been done. Some points / questions / comments:

~~Boring point, but I think you ought to add the website page date using the "date=" parameter of {{cite web}} where it's available, for future reference.~~
~~I was told for the JC List, and I think I'd agree, that it's best if the names sort by surname (using {{sortname}} is best)~~
~~Similarly, the references columns needn't be sortable: adding class="unsortable" does the trick~~
~~It was also suggested for the JC List that the columns ought to be the same width consistently, and in retrospect I think that did help make it looker neater. Would that work here?~~
~~If you end up with some free space on the right hand side of the tables as a result, do you have a sprinkling of free-use images of faculty members to add? (Not a great concern)~~
~~Lead is a bit short. Can you, for example, say anything about the Presidents there? Any particularly prominent faculty members? (Not a great concern, looking at the length of the DC alumni lead!)~~
~~Are there any names in Category:Dartmouth College faculty who aren't in this list? I kept losing count...~~
(Now you'll be preaching to the converted with your answer to this one, as far as I'm concerned, given the difficulties of dynamic lists, but anyway...) an issue that arose for the JC List was the comprehensiveness of the information, both in terms of (a) getting as many notable names as possible on the list and (b) the information for each name. It is, of course, impossible to prove the negative that no-one notable is omitted, but what's been done to find people to include?

:I hope I'm not coming across as bragging about the JC List, but as that's a recent comparable list to go through FLC, the same points are likely to come up, so I might as well make them first whilst the scars are still fresh! Very good work so far, though, and I look forward to being able to support. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for the comments. My edits in response:

Date parameter: I do add it when it's available. However, usually publication dates are only present in news articles and the like, whereas most of the cited sources here are just faculty profile pages or other generally undated pages.
Sorting: that {{sortname}} is a cool tool! Thanks for suggesting that, I didn't know it even existed. I've applied it to all the names.
Sorting: I included the sortable feature in the wikitable because I figured with the quantitative data in the charts (years of entry/exit and graduation when applicable), a user might want to see the faculty in a rough chronological order. Similarly (although it varies due to different titles like "Professor" and "Assistant Professor"), if you sort the "Position" column, you get rough organization by department. I just thought it was a cool tool; I agree it isn't necessary, but figured it might be useful. I've left it for now, but if you feel strongly that it should go, I'll remove it.
Images: I don't think that there will be space. I'm sure that at least for some of the older faculty (I'm thinking pre-1923) I could drum some up, but squeezing them in would probably break up the flow of the table.
Comprehensiveness: I used Category:Dartmouth College faculty as the basis for the list, copying all those names out of there and turning them into this list. So, they're definitely all there. Beyond that, I honestly have no idea how to go about establishing comprehensiveness. I'm open to ideas, but beyond cross-checking a list of every faculty member in history to Wikipedia articles, I'm coming up empty. Dartmouth maintains the directory under External links but doesn't appear to have anything in the way of "our most famous faculty" or anything. Any suggestions?
Lead: that was the struggle over at the alumni list, too, to expand it. I'll do what I can in the next day or so.

Thanks! Kane5187 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Thanks for the heads-up on the proper use of {{sortname}} - I guess I just skimmed the instructions and didn't catch that part. It's been rectified. Kane5187 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted a few webpages that had creation dates on; if I can remember which they were, I'll add them or point them out. A longer lead would be nice if you can. As for comprehensiveness checking, it might be worth checking "what links here" at Dartmouth College just in case someone's mentioned as being a faculty member without having been put in the category. Otherwise, I can't think of where to go to get more names that aren't already on WP - I had a quick check of the Dartmouth website and its history section is rather short on past faculty names. This list has a good spread from different subjects and eras. And, of course, not all faculty members will be notable, and the number of notable faculty will be much lower than the number of notable alumni anyway, given class sizes. Unless anybody else comes up with anything I've not thought of, I'm prepared to support. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I actually did find something on the Dartmouth website, a Guide to Dartmouth experts, which I crosschecked on Wikipedia and came up with a few additional names. I also expanded the intro. I'll start going through the What Links Here. Kane5187 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~
- ~~Too many entries have no date whatsoever, making it impossible to know if the person is even current faculty.~~
- ~~No need to repeat "Faculty" in every header. It's sort of redundant.~~
- ~~Consider replacing "current" with "active" or something similarly clearer. "present" is still an ambiguous word in English.~~
- Emeritus positions do not usually involve actual teaching, and are sort of life titles. Consider placing such faculty in a separate section with the year of award, since there is technically no retirement possible: they have already retired!
Circeus 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Thanks for the comments. My thoughts:
  - The dates are superfluous -- they're there as extra information that while helpful, is not fundamental to the point of the list. Every faculty member has a citation showing that it he or she was or is a faculty member. It's like the List of Dartmouth College alumni -- just because not everyone has a cited graduation year doesn't make them any less an alum, and if they have a cite, it shouldn't matter.
  - I removed "Faculty" from the headings -- good point.
  - I replaced "current" with "(active)" -- another good point.
  - What are you referring to with the emeritus positions? I know what it means, and I haven't included any years served as an emeritus professor in these lists -- only their years as an active professor. In fact, my browser doesn't find the word "emeritus" anywhere in this article.

Kane5187 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, there should be at least one date in these entry,if at all possible.
Re:emeritus, Kantrowitz is an example, according to your own source. That would explain why he is not currently listed as "(active)".

Circeus 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added as much as I could find in reliable sources in terms of dates. For some people, that means no dates at all, just the fact that they taught there. I wish there were more dates, but I found what I could find.

I see what you mean. That's exactly it -- Kantrowitz isn't active, so I didn't put "(active)", but I also couldn't find the year in which he retired, so I left it blank. If you think it would be better to go through and indicate those with an "(emeritus)" or something, I can do that. Kane5187 01:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I think I misunderstood you. I went back through and indicated for everyone based on the sources whether or not they were active professors, and indicated when necessary if they were emeritus. Not as great as having dates for everyone, but it's the best possible with the sources I found. Kane5187 01:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm still verging on a weak oppose. Baumgartner is, according to his article, emeritus professor, so might want to look into that. Also, having dead people listed as "not active" is, to say the least, an understatement. Circeus 02:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks for the catch on Baumgartner, I've changed and cited it. I've also gone back through and added a note on the death date to the "(not active)" for those who have gone up to the big rodeo in the sky -- that ought to give the rough timeframe I presume you felt was lacking.
  As far remaining at a neutral/weak oppose, I gather from the way you frame your comment -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that your objection lies in more than just the two comments you put here. If that is the case, I'd appreciate an objection with a specific rationale that can be addressed. Kane5187 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't objecting to begin with ;-) Just saying I had no reason to object, but did not feel strongly enough to support. Circeus 16:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I know what you mean. I just meant that I don't want to just kind of back my way into getting you to grudgingly support, I wanted you to be able to back it 100%. And it sounded like you were still kind of uneasy about it, so I wanted to be able to do everything possible to bring this up to snuff. I hope that didn't come off the wrong way. Kane5187 04:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I found a handful for dates for people who were missing them. Down to 15 16 left missing one or both dates, all of whom I've double- or triple-checked without success. Kane5187 07:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Circeus 16:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am surprised to see how notable these instructors are. --Crzy cheetah 02:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport. Suggestion: colour the rows for active faculty differently. This will make them stand out. Colin°^Talk 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]