Wikipedia:Peer review/List of people associated with the French Revolution/archive1
List of people associated with the French Revolution[edit]
I'm wondering what people think it would take to get this up to the level for WP:FLC. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I think its a very subjective list. Such lists may not get featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- How is it subjective? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Does "may not" here mean "might not" or "are not allowed to be"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- This is a partial list of people involved in the French Revolution. It includes both supporters and opponents of the revolution. It attempts to give identifying facts and ultimate fates'. For one the list is "partial" ie not complete. Secondly, there may be hundreds of people associated with the FR no matter how small. The list should be complete and finite. There's no cut-off mentioned regarding the who's-who that can be included here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Most lists are inherently partial, unless it's something like the list of provinces in a country. Anything that involves notability as a criterion is going to be that way. I just don't know what to say to this. Are you saying that this is somehow more subjective than the featured list List of cultural references in The Cantos? Or are you saying that list should not be featured? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- This is a partial list of people involved in the French Revolution. It includes both supporters and opponents of the revolution. It attempts to give identifying facts and ultimate fates'. For one the list is "partial" ie not complete. Secondly, there may be hundreds of people associated with the FR no matter how small. The list should be complete and finite. There's no cut-off mentioned regarding the who's-who that can be included here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- To me there's a difference between this and the List of cultural references in The Cantos. That one, while perhaps not 100% comprehensive (maybe the guy writing the list missed one or two somewhere), is well-defined – every time someone or some place is mentioned, he/she/it gets a reference. "List of people associated with the French Revolution" is really tough, because the title doesn't define it well at all. It's such a huge topic that it likely could never be filled. If it were limited to "List of military generals of the French Revolution" or something more definable like that, it would be more possible to complete it. But in this case, there's no way to know what "associated" means. Does it include foreigners who supported one side or the other but never went to France? Does it include everybody who fought? Everyone who gave money? How will you ever be reasonably sure that you've got everyone or nearly everyone? I wouldn't say that this list is inherently non-featureable, but I'd still say that it's virtually impossible that it would ever meet my criterion for "comprehensive", unless the scope were better defined in the title or the lead. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, sounds like getting this featured is hopeless because the topic is amorphous. It's still very useful as a quick reference for those trying to understand our 200+ articles related to the Revolution, so I don't really see organizing it differently. I guess I'll just give up on the possibility of getting it featured. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)