Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Missouri University of Science and Technology alumni/archive1

• • Fixed.

• Be careful about CITESPAM, there's nothing we're getting from three sources about Raymer (for instance) that we couldn't get in 1 or 2.
  • I went through and removed redundant references (entries have a max of 2).

• Ref 28 (and 84) does not strike me as reliable.
  • Removed.

• Ref 68 needs an ISBN.
  • Fixed.

Courcelles (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles Comments are addressed. Jmnbqb (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Opening sentence is a little silly really, I know we need to avoid "this is a list of" but you're just repeating the title of the list twice, using different words.
  • Reworded
• "The list of notable Missouri University" nope. Maybe just "The alumni of ..."
  • Fixed
• "Moon Landing" no need for caps.
  • Fixed
• Majority Leader isn't capitalised that way.
  • Fixed
• Fix the piped redirect for Chinese Republic.
  • Fixed

Otherwise for me it's just how comprehensive it is, and I simply don't have time to check that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Comments are addressed. Jmnbqb (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All images need alt text
• These links all need to be fixed, especially the dead one.
• When sorting names they should be sorted by last name per WP:Sorting.
• Capitalize the instances of "Transferred out" in the class year col

Everything else looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: all the above have been corrected, though my perspective differs from yours regarding two items. Many Asian names have their family name written first and are thus sorted that way (which looks wrong though I believe it to be correct); see WP:NAMESORT. I was able to access every link without any changes made to them; the only exceptions are 'dead' "original" ones, though they have working archive links alongside them in the same citation; the associated template presents both. Please comment further if you believe changes are still needed for these items. Thanks! —ADavidB 02:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adavidb Alright the sorting I'm not too worried about in that case. But all the references still need to be fixed. They all need to be working according to the toolbox. Whoever conducts the source review later on will say the same thing. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Okay. The two original dead links are removed, leaving only their associated archive links. —ADavidB 03:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adavidb Alright I'm sorry for being blunt. I just know that a source reviewer would say the same thing as we all like the toolbox to have all white links. I know that for green links those can usually be fixed simply by archiving them. The blue and orange ones I'm less familiar with but they should try to be sorted out soon. I would say that is the only problem for me now. Everything else looks good. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand your concern BeatlesLedTV. I would like to get an opinion from somebody who usually conducts source reviews (maybe The Rambling Man) on how this may be fixed before we start removing the references since it may result in a loss of information/entries if replacement references can't be found. Jmnbqb (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]