Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of presidents of the National Rifle Association/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of presidents of the National Rifle Association[edit]

List of presidents of the National Rifle Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exhaustive list of all 67 presidents of the NRA and six of the past executive vice presidents of the NRA. All presidents are included, but only executive vice presidents that have a page are also included. The primary list is sortable by year elected to office, last name, and type of occupation a person had, and the specific name of that occupation. Additionally, it is color-coded to represent backgrounds of Activism, Business, Law enforcement, Legal, Military, Nature, Politics, shooting sports, or other general fields. The primary list has 5 high quality images which accompany it, and the article has two images side-by-side depicting the current president and executive vice president. There are a total of three red links on the page and 3,732 words in the article (of which roughly 302 of those words represent readable prose). It's the highest quality list article I have ever created, so therefore I am nominating it for featured list status. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: The table looks like a rainbow and does not include any type of symbol, which are needed for color blind people. Also, all caps in the refs need to be removed; MOS:Caps. More comments later. Lirim | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The all caps issue has now been fixed. I'm not sure how to best address your first comment, though. I would be willing to just axe the colors altogether since the table is already sortable in that regard. I'm open to suggestions there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colors are superficial and don't tell me anything that the Background column doesn't tell me already. Should be removed.
  • The Ref. Column should be titled {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
  • president of the National Rifle Association/Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association do not to be fat text
  • Executive Vice Presidents of the NRA should also be in a table like the Presidents of the National Rifle Association
  • The pictures are way too large (200px is large enough)
  • The lead is too short
—Lirim | Talk 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lirim.Z: I removed the colors, titled the heading {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (no period), reformed the exec VP list as a table, resized the pictures, and expanded the lead. I have no clue what you meant by "[NRA president/Exec VP of NRA] do not to be fat text" so I left that alone. I think you are referring to the bolded black text? If that is the case, I will state having it bolded is simply my preference, but I will remove it if needed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Edited: 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hatting sock comments per Revert, block, ignore --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • First, I know it's tough editing a controversial topic like this, but for FL consideration you really need to watch your word and sentence choice per WP:W2W and WP:SYNTH. Let the facts do the talking. Troublesome examples that immediately pop out to me are:
  • "... the group's was exclusively to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis. However by 1977, the NRA had been heavily involved in lobbying ..."
  • "Today, it is considered one of the most influential special interest groups ... and a powerful force ..."
  • "... the NRA has had several presidents make controversial statements ..."
  • "... they provide the appearance of legitimacy ..."
  • etc
  • That brings me to my next point, keep of level of detail about the organization itself to the minimum amount possible. For a list of people in group Y, you shouldn't be discussing how groups X and Z think group Y is the best/worst/etc. Nor should you discuss the history of the organization itself, it's official stances, controversies, etc. Leave that content to the article on group Y. The same thing can be said for controversial statements made by individudal members; leave that content to the people's respective articles. (In other words, delete most of the first two paragraphs in the lead.)
  • Instead: give a brief set of explanations on what an NRA president is, what their duties are, how they've changed through history (if they have), etc. (Similar to how the VPs are discussed)
  • Briefly talk about the history of the presidential nomination/election processes. Has it remained the same throughout the organization's history? Did any presidents have their status revoked, and if so, why? Did any presidents die during office? What's the longest the office has gone unfilled, and why? Etc.
  • In addition to talking about who the current president is, also mention the first president, the one who held the most terms, the shortest term, oldest, youngest, the wealthiest, the poorest, who owned the most guns, etc. Stuff like that. To be a featured list it really needs to be comprehensive.
  • In short, by the time you're done, it should be impossible confuse the NRA article with the article on the list of presidents of the NRA.
  • This is also written from an American-centric perspective. Try writing for a broader international audience.
  • Example, instead of saying "oldest president "in the country", which can be confusing for international readers, say "oldest president in the United States" or "in the NRA".

VF9 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to address this when I get back from school. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@VF9: Here's the deal... I just spent like idk how many hours looking into the election process at this point. The best I could do was the current iteration of the article which involved a little way too much research. If you want to know what I am talking about, here is an actual investigative article just to find know who served on the nominating committee in 2013 (if you read the article carefully, you'll see this footnote). Quite frankly, it was a miracle I managed to find a WP:RS that explicitly says that the president serves at the will of the board. Most people talk about this stuff in hushed tones and/or on crank blogs. Wild. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: If there are no reliable sources on some of the information I or other reviewers want to see (such as a brief history of the election process in this case), that's a perfectly valid reason not to mention it. As per criteria 3a, comprehensiveness is defined by the scope of the sources, and it mostly applies to the list itself. Per criteria 2, a short yet reliably sourced lead can be acceptable for a FL, as long as it's not off topic and defines the scope. VF9 (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@VF9: Oh, good!! How is it doing in the off-topic department btw? I'd like to believe I cut out the right bits and added some more relevant info. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: The first paragraph definitely looks a lot better, and I have no more complaints there. The second article could still use a bit more work. The information is engaging and isn't necessarily off-topic, but it does need better re-wording. Try explaining "political status quo," such that someone unfamiliar with American politics would understand. Also, the way the second sentence is worded, it's unclear if the NRA makes the presidents say what they say, or if they say it on their own accord. VF9 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@VF9: I could tighten up the now unnecessary transitional phrase "In recent times," but besides that I think it provides the necessary context. If someone looking to understand why the NRA might want to intentionally provoke outrage, it would be as simple as clicking a link! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: That's definitely an improvement! The first sentence is still a bit grammatically off though: "The choice ... to provide ... to intentionally provoking ..." Needs a bit more rewording. "In recent times" is fine, but look up comma usage when saying "such as," and possibly include another quote or two. VF9 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@VF9: Fixed. I sometimes tend towards a rather... archaic style of grammar. I end up using commas like a 19th-century lawyer. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just noticed an issue with the first paragraph. The second sentence isn't grammatically correct, and I just fixed it myself as explaining it would be more work. VF9 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on the sentence fragment there. I don't normally do that. Crushing to my personal standards on excellent writing, really.I can still laugh at myself. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MJL: One further nitpick, not all of your sources are archived. Due to the controversial nature of some of these sources, they may not last much longer. I'd hate to see this become a former FL in the future due to something as easily prevented as WP:LINKROT. VF9 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All articles that can be archived have currently now been. I have saved the article multiple times in the Wayback machine as well as all its outgoing links. The bot can take care of any future dead links, I assure you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent! VF9 (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Further comments from me:
  • Ref column should not be sortable
  • Write AFL out in full. You can't assume that readers (especially those outside the USA) will know what this is
  • "Several notable Executive Vice Presidents of the National Rifle Association include:" - the word "several" here is redundant and should be removed
  • It isn't clear why only a handful of EVPs are listed, and you also don't give any sense of what proportion of the total number they represent. Have there been 30 EVPs? 60? 100? Has this role existed for the entire existence of the NRA or was it created later? You also don't give any indication of when "the so-called Cincinnati revolt" occurred, other than that it was presumably before 1987. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: The first three issues are now fixed, but I sadly can't reliably fix part of the the last issue. Pretty much, I could find no reliable source interested in the topic of Executive Vice President (which makes kind of sense since they're the not the figurehead). I don't know when the position was created nor anything really interesting facts about it. LaPierre has held the post since 1991, and generally there is not a lot of turnover there. To give some perspective here, I was just barely able to scrape enough information together to make a comprehensive list of all the NRA Presidents. The best I could for the EVP was just list the handful of ones that were notable. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would probably just remove the section entirely. If so little has been written about the EVP post that we can't say when the role was created or even hazard a guess as to how many people have held it, I would be tempted to bin it off altogether. It also arguably doesn't fit within the scope of the article (which is List of presidents of the National Rifle Association not List of presidents and executive vice presidents of the National Rifle Association). You could instead add a sentence or two to the lead saying something like "The position of president is largely an honorary one, and the operational running of the body is instead the responsibility of the executive vice president, a post held by Wayne LaPierre since 1991" (only better worded - I don't like "operational running" but it's been a long day and I can't think of better wording right now :-P) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Removed, and I suppose I'll just leave out Wayne LaPierre for the time being. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to leave him out completely, in fact I would actively encourage you to include some text in the lead saying something like "The position of president is largely an honorary one, and the operation (or some better word) of the body is instead the responsibility of the executive vice president, a post held by Wayne LaPierre since 1991" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Done. I included in the paragraph about pay. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more things I spotted: "In total, there have been 67 presidents of the NRA" - no there haven't, there have been 65 presidents, who between them had 67 terms of office...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments:
  • There needs to be consistency in your "background" column. First what do you mean by background? Second, why do you sometimes have U.S. Senator, and other times specify the state (U.S. Senator from Wyoming). What does "activist" mean? It doesn't seem to match the others in this column which appear to be occupations? Some generalships are included in background, sometimes they are not.
  • You can use the term Businessperson and link to the article
  • First Executive Director of the NRA-ILA is mentioned in a note, but nowhere is ILA defined.

Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Last two notes are fixed, but to your first point... Well, I wanted to list everyone's day jobs because this is an unpaid position, but not everyone had day jobs. Some people also had like fifty day jobs, and I didn't know what to say for them either. Church, for example, was both a journalist and a soldier (like at the same time). What I did was just approximated to whatever reliable sources said and hoped for the best. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Query
  • What's going on with some of the refs? Ref 78 contains refs 76 and 77? Never seen that before............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: I'm really... lame because I wanted to keep citations in the table two or under. I therefore bundled the citations. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you do that I don't think you are supposed to put ref tags around the citation templates within the refn. See the example edit I just did to Gutermuth's row (fabulous name by the way :-)) - I think it's meant to be done like that.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MJL: apologies, I forgot to check back with this one. Do you plan to amend the "refs within refs" as per the above comment? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @ChrisTheDude: I just removed all the bundled refs instead. I might switch out the citation style to a more sleek harvnb thing later, but for now it's not worth the effort just for a prettier table. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few small tweaks to the lead and am now OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*If you're using "NRA" as an acronym it would be best to include it as an aside alongside the first mention of "National Rifle Association" (so "The position of president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a largely symbolic role").
  • While I'm in favour of alt text, if it's reduplicative of the image caption it isn't necessary—as such, the portraits of Meadows and Lapierre might not need it. Not a major point but worth consideration.
  • There's a bit of a disconnect in captioning North as "Colonel Oliver North" but listing his background as merely a "political commentator"; listing him as a Lieutenant Colonel the same way Randle is mentioned may be more forthright.
  • Table seems fine, no glaring accessibility issues that I can see.
  • Images are all from Commons, no issues with fair use or attribution.
  • "In recent times, some NRA presidents have made controversial statements such as..." I'm not sure if I like this wording if we're only listing one such example; is there anything from one of the more recent Presidents which could be added here for more weight?
  • "...and Wingate would later go on to do so as well in 1886 to become the tenth". Feels a little awkward. Perhaps "and Wingate would in 1986 become the tenth"--it's a little shorter but more to the point.
  • "Those who also have held the position include Ulysses S. Grant"--I would note here that he had already served as US President
  • "two Union veterans"--Link to Union Army? It's not linked elsewhere.
    • Ultimately I feel like this is close to a support; on a technical level I'm happy with it but the prose feels like it could do with a polish. I've listed a few examples above to look at, at least. Given that it's not a particularly long section of prose it might be worth asking WP:GOCE to look at it but this isn't overly necessary. I'm happy with the formatting of the refs and could perform a random-sampling source review if the delegates require one. GRAPPLE X 16:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order:
      1. Done
      2. Removed
      3. I added a footnote, but I tried to use the background field to articulate why the person was considered for the position (generally, the NRA uses the position to represent a certain type of constituency). Since Mustin, there really hasn't been any "military" people put in that position. North really was chosen because he was controversial political commentator and not because he was a former uniformed military officer. I've updated the image caption, though.
      4. Awesome
      5. Great!
      6. There is little I can do there. That Heston quote pretty much dwarves anything later NRA presidents have said. I really can't think of any way to re-word that sentence without changing the tense.
      7. I have adjusted the phrasing there.
      8. Done
      9. Linked
      10. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: #6, perhaps just word it to be more specifically aimed at Heston--rather than "some NRA presidents have made...", try "In his role as president, Charlton Heston attracted controversy by..." or something similar. If we can't demonstrate it's a broad trend we shouldn't word it as such, but obviously the "cold dead hands" line is noteworthy enough to mention. GRAPPLE X 10:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grapple: I shoved in the Porter "Obama is a fake president" quote. Does that work? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that works. Either way the contention was just that we had a statement indicating multiple events but only crediting a single one. This resolves that issue fine. GRAPPLE X 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Satisfied with the above comments. GRAPPLE X 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Teratix[edit]

  • If, as the title suggests, the list only includes presidents, why does the lead discuss LaPierre, the vice-president?
  • Specifying image sizes in px is discouraged per MOS:IMGSIZE, use the upright parameter instead
  • There are a few seas of blue links throughout (e.g. Union general Ambrose Burnside)
  • position of president of "of" twice in close succession is jarring to read.
  • the lack of shooting skills of recruits same here
  • the newly organized rifle association selected 1) cut "newly organised", it's clear from preceding text 2) Any information on how this selection process worked?
  • famed Union general WP:PEACOCK
  • to act as its first president cut "to act"
  • Throughout its history, Presidents you lowercase the term in this context everywhere else
  • Outrage porn refers to media, not people
  • to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation. One source for this which, while reputable, only covers a single contemporary president.
  • In recent times MOS:DATED
  • No need to link Obama
  • currently chosen by the board of directors see above
  • have gone on to become paid by the NRA this phrasing is awkward
  • during Oliver North's time in office he sought to make the position a paid one Missing some context here. Why did he fail? Why was this opposed?
  • In total, there have been 65 different presidents of the NRA between 67 separate terms in office -> "There have been 65 presidents, serving 67 distinct terms." or similar.
  • Those who have held the position include former president Ulysses S. Grant, Harlon Carter, American Football League commissioner Joe Foss, and David Keene. why highlight these particular people?
  • As of 2019, the current president of the National Rifle Association is Carolyn D. Meadows. -> "As of 2019, Carolyn D. Meadows is president" or similar
  • For accessiblity, the table needs:
  • Why are the numbers right-aligned?
  • No need to link "businessperson", it's a common term. And there's no ambiguity over gender, so just write "businessman"
  • Source says Kayne Robinson was only a deputy police chief
  • Mustin's tenure needs a dash
  • The table is inconsistent on whether the subject's locations should be presented
  • All the footnotes should go. The information is either covered (or should be covered) in the lead or best presented in the subjects' articles.
  • Anything wrong with the lead image in Oliver North, rather than the noticeably wider one in the list currently?
  • May add more comments concerning citations later

Overall, I'm a little uneasy about this list. The prose problems are fixable, but there's a lack of detail concerning seemingly key elements of the position (single sentence on the purposes of the role, single sentence on the selection process, nothing on the duties of the role beyond noting that it's "largely symbolic"). – Teratix ₵ 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In reverse order (bottom of the list to top):
  • Sounds good
  • I like variety
    • It's a bit too jarring to just have one wide image based on an editor's personal preference. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image now cropped.
  • Do I really have to remove the footnotes?
    • Maybe you could keep [i], but everything else, yes, for the reasons I've outlined. Of course, you can disagree, but best back up your disagreement with reasons. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I got rid of most of them, but I kept footnote C as well. That seems to have been a pretty turbulent time period for the NRA, but I think it would be UNDUE it cover it in the lead. If you still object, I'll get rid of it, but it should probably be examined separately from the others.
        • Presidents' resignations seem like just the sort of thing to discuss in the lead. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally, I wanted to include a section dedicated to their home states, but I could not get reliable information for each of the presidents in that regard and worried about WP:UNDUE. However, it should now be consistent for every politician and chief law enforcement officer on the list.
  • Fixed
  • He was also the Chief of Detectives, so I went with that instead.
  • Changed
  • The right-aligned numbers make me happy.
    • Not very important, I guess. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated
  • Done
    • Could still be more concise. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those people are interesting, I guess.
    • Not sure this is a suitable criterion. What you and I find interesting may differ. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • Added content
  • Replaced with Some former presidents have later been employed by the NRA
  • de-linked
  • used Since the 1990s
  • Added a source about Porter
    • Hmm, not sure that says anything about the selection intentionally being for this purpose. It's an exceptional claim, especially when made in Wikipedia's voice. It does certainly seem that way, but I think the sourcing needs to be more explicit. Otherwise, this section may need a rewrite. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the article, "The election of James Porter... is one of many defiant signals to come out of the NRA's annual meeting in Houston over the weekend." "Porter... has been building that outrage his whole life." I could look for another source if you like, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neither of those quotes are an adequate source for the statement that presidents intentionally provoke outrage. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-linked
  • lowercased
  • Cut
  • Removed "famed "
  • Now the rifle association voted to have Union general
  • of --> among
  • Removed "position of"
    • Hmm, it's a bit ambiguous now (could be referring to the role or the person holding the role). Sorry, it was better before I got to it – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above
    • Some are still outstanding. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected where possible
  • He's basically the shadow president of the NRA.
  • @Teratix: I hope that covers 90% of your concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably will not support nor oppose this list, as I'm not best placed to evaluate the neutrality and comprehensiveness of certain sections in a page on such a politically-charged group. (will wait and see how changes go – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)) (For future reference, it's easier to follow a featured content discussion if you reply to comments directly underneath where they are posted, as I have done). – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MJL: just checking you've seen my replies. – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Teratix: Hi, yes sorry. I've currently bitten off a bit more than I can chew, so to speak. I will responding to your concerns hopefully in a few days. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, at this point I'm going to oppose promotion of this list. My reasons, ordered by severity:
  1. The lead makes an extraordinary claim in Wikipedia's voice without adequate verification (presidents have served [the purpose of] ... intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation.). Additionally, the succeeding sentences discussing presidents' controversial statements give an impression of improper implied synthesis (i.e. discussing presidents' controversial statements to imply that is the purpose of the role, despite no source directly stating this).
  2. The lead does not adequately explain what the position of president entails (criterion 2). It's largely symbolic (implying "not entirely") and has served purposes ranging from providing the NRA greater legitimacy to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation... but nothing beyond that (and as per my previous point, even this sentence is problematic). No explanations of their duties (or lack thereof). I hate to say it, but some of VF9's hatted comments hit the nail on the head.
  3. The list does not follow the Manual of Style (criterion 5) in several places, notably the accessibility guidelines.
  • Given that this nomination has been open for almost five months and still has serious unresolved problems despite a relatively active nominator, I think it needs a break, a clean slate and possibly a rewrite.
This is my first time opposing an FLC; I may be overreacting? Previous reviewers (@Guerillero, Grapple X, ChrisTheDude, Mattximus, and Lirim.Z:) do you have any thoughts? – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wayne LaPierr's portrait shouldn't really be at the top because the list isn't about the EVP. Besides that, everything looks good --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Are you still working on this list? The oppose has sat untouched for a month, and if not addressed I'm going to have to close the nomination. --PresN 17:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Oh, yes sorry!
Basically, I wasn't too sure how to respond to In actu besides saying I disagree? I am not aware of any unaddressed accessibility problems, feel that I have described the position of NRA president in the best way that RS citations allow me to do, and do not share In actu's perspective on the possibility of synthesis. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I made the oppose, not In actu/Guerillero). I added a caption to the table, which resolves the accessibility issue. However, there are still an array of unresolved issues, which I have outlined in my previous comments, including the two major problems which have led to my opposition. I welcome efforts from the nominator to resolve them, but just saying "I disagree" without explanation is not sufficient. – Teratix ₵ 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix: I have removed the "intentionally" from the claim. However, both examples come from the Atlantic article, so that can't really be synthesis. That was your most severe point, so I decided to respond to that first.
I am no longer as active as I once was, to be honest.
Idk, if you still want to oppose, but I will respect that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe ) 18:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments this review will be submitted to WikiCup.
  • Avoid repeating NRA in the opening sentence, replace the second NRA with "organization" perhaps.
    • Fixed
  • "origins in" as you've given a precise date, I assume this to be the "foundation" date, so why not use that.
    • Done
  • "two Union veterans" just leave link as Union Army as to non-experts or non-Americans, that makes more sense.
    • Done
  • Besides, you have "Union" as a pipe twice with different targets.
    • Union General --> List of Union generals
    • two Union veterans --> Union Army
    • Okay now?
  • "Church would soon succeed" -> "Church succeeded"
    • Done
  • Is it president or President?
    • president
  • Don't use the hash symbol to mean per MOS:HASH.
    • Fixed
  • The later image captions could use some relationship to this list, i.e. when the individuals were NRA president and when the photos were taken (for context).
    • Done for all except first. Unclear when that was taken.
  • Background sorts very strangely for me.
    • Sorts by field then by occupation.
  • Interesting that you select "Political commentator" as Oliver North's background. I'm no expert but my awareness of North comes from his significant military service.
    • Just went with what was first listed in the article
  • In my opinion, the row scope parameters should be against the name of the president as that, after all, is the topic under discussion, not the number.
    • I can't help that without rearranging the list, right?
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
    • Not sure what this is in reference to besides maybe Ref 31?
  • Note b ("Son of Irvine C. Porter") is both unreferenced and unhelpful considering Irvine C. Porter is a redlink. What benefit does this give the reader?
    • The reference has been added in the note as well. The benefit it provides is that it explains the shared last name is not a coincidence. The redlink is a bit of a personal indulgence; I wanted at least one redlink for an NRA president in the article. If I had a redlink for them all, then it would be considered too much red, I believe.
  • Presidents sucbox at the bottom needs work on en-dashes for year ranges.
    • I think that's fixed. Do you mean navbox?
  • Also Tom Washington is linked in that template (and not in your table) but links to a basketball player...
    • Removed
  • I don't understand the inconsistency in linking between the template and table either, I would expect them to be identical.
    • The template pre-existed the article, and I chose not to touch it. However, this has now been corrected.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TRM: Responded. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Until above-mentioned comments are disposed. Table needs scope row tags as well. Dog Hole Cave (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC) one purpose account vote removed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Considering closing this nomination- Opposer still opposes with no further comment made, and no response has been made to TRM's review in 3 weeks. Will close soon if no action is taken. --PresN 02:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Sorry for the delay. I recently got a job IRL as a grocery store worker and had real life obligations this weekend. I'll work on it right now. If I don't get it all done, then I'll ask this be closed for expediency-sake. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_presidents_of_the_National_Rifle_Association/archive1&oldid=962597945"