Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients/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 not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

List of Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

I believe that this list os worthy of being a Featured list. Please let me know if additional changes need to be made.--Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think linking to things in headers is generally discouraged, and it would be great if you could explain what the purpose of the "Foreign" section is. -- Scorpion0422 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Please let me know if you see anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an excellent list, very comprehensive and detailed. The only thing I could say is to find a refences beside the U.S. Army Center of Military History Medal of Honor Citations Archive to further validate all of the listings. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments a few quick things...

**Dates should all be formatted per WP:DATE and date ranges should separate using an en-dash per WP:DASH.

      •  Done If I understand this correctly.--Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Avoid links in bold sections of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.

      •  Done I only found one link that was in bold and I corrected it.--Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Why are there several sections which just link to other articles? If there are no medal of honor recipients for those campaigns they shouldn't be linked to here. If there are recipients for those campaigns then they should be included here otherwise this list will be incomplete.

      •  DoneThe reason for this is because there are 3500 recipients so there are far too many to put into 1 list and I do not agree with holding up the list because there are too many and had to be broken up.--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ensure image captions which are fragments don't end in a full stop.??I don't know what you mean here. Maybe someone can explain this to me.--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, oppose until these are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the "completeness" of the list. It may be worthwhile you reading what's going on with a current candidate for delisting, the List of Arsenal F.C. players, considered incomplete because not all Arsenal players are listed. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1 is where you'll find the debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion this is different, in the article you mention not all players are listed, so in my opinion it does NOT meet the criteria. In this case all of the Medal of Honor recipients are listed but for ease of use and to ensure that the page doesn't reach critical mass they are split up. They are all there, they just are not on one page. To list all 3500+ on one page would not only make the article difficult to read, navigate and edit it would far exceed the reasonable length an article should be.--Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's an interesting outlook. The debate at WP:FOOTBALL is ongoing and I'm interested to see how it pans out before I can commit to supporting any article which doesn't meet similar requirements. I understand length is an issue. In fact, the Arsenal list would be around 1000 long if the debate ends in the conclusion that all players should be listed. In fact, I think this is an interesting point. Thanks, I'll take your opinion there! More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just FYI I've added this perspective to the on-going debate. I think its valid and would be interested in the opinion of the wider community. Until it's resolved, however, I'll have to reserve my support. Sorry, nothing personal, but there's little point in promoting this list just to see it delisted under an ongoing debate. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • "the 3,464th will be presented April 8th, 2008)" makes the list unstable, and see WP:DATE for that date.
    •  Done I fixed the date and the list isn't unstable its true that there will be more recipients of the Medal of Honor occasionally but they are extremely rare.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1863-1973 " en-dash needed.
  • "The following is a complete "... not really, it's a list of some and a lot of forks to other articles which may or may not be complete.
    •  Done, It is a complete list if you include all the forks. Again, it is not reasonable to include all of the recipients on one page so this is the only way to do it without the article hitting critical mass. If wikipedia has a rule that says that an article cannot become GA status or higher if it has forks then we need to add an exception for extremely large articles. If an article can never be allowed to achieve greatness then it should be deleted. Otherwise it would just be a waste of time.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure why it's unreasonable to include all recipients on one page. That's what's being discussed at the Arsenal players list. That's why I can't support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you check out List of Medal of Honor recipients for the American Civil War: A-L you will see that list has exceeded 100kb and it has been suggested that it be split up. Also bear in mind that the American Civil war list is already 1 of 2 and that it doesn't have anywhere near the info it will need to reach GA status some day. If you add together all of the recipients and assuming the page has all the info required for GA status I suspect they will be close to a 500k article.
          • Not if you transclude the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure what you mean, could you give me an example?--Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see what you mean now but that list is extremely long, its knowwhere near FL status and its less than half the size of what the Medal of Honor list would be.--Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Outdent) The List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality has a similar pattern, I do believe. It's an acceptable standard for long lists with easily defined sections to have the exceedingly large parts moved into seperate lists. The list of latin phrases is not a FL, but VC is, so it has a precedent that is applicable here, especially since it is a list almost exactly like the Medal of Honor listing. Cromdog (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Medal of Honor" = avoid The in headings per WP:HEAD.
  • Ref [2] needs placing after the comma.
  • The rest of the Medal of Honor section has no citation, e.g. the quote and the comparisons with the VC etc.
  • Korean expedition has no references.
  • Nor does Samoan Civil War.
  • Nor the whole of the Boxer Rebellion section.
  • " Two time " in captions, why not two-time?
  • "1916-1924." en dash required. Done and no citations in this section either.
  • "The immediate cause of the war was the June 28, 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb citizen of Austria-Hungary and member of the Black Hand. The retaliation by Austria-Hungary against Serbia activated a series of alliances that set off a chain reaction of war declarations. Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare." no citations.
  • So according to your key, none of the awards were made posthumously until 1993?
    •  Done Again, if you look at the forks they were, its just that on this page there are none until you get to that. You seem to be stuck on the forks thing, if you insist that is the only way to pass it I will add all of the recipients to one page, but I don't recommend it.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no, I was just ensuring that none of the other recipients on this page were posthumous recipients. The thing is that in the lead you say more posthumous awards are made than not, and this table (exc. forks) tells the opposite story. That's confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of unknown soldiers is odd, you talk about Canadians and then there's just a list of unknown soldiers.
  • So some more work and still the outcome of the Arsenal list before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to wait on doing any more changes until the Arsenal debate stabilizes, because if they come back and say that it must contain all players/recipients then this article will never reach GA status because it will be too big to edit or read. Sorry if my attitude seems bad but for this article to be held up because we chose to split it up into digestible peaces is ridiculous to me.--Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry that this has occurred while you're mid-FLC, but please don't take just my opinion into account. The consensus rules and just because I'm going to oppose until the Arsenal situation has resolved itself, it doesn't mean others will. You're perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that the entire list in one page is ridiculous, just as a lot of us have at WP:FOOTBALL. But the NHL guys are arguing the list is incomplete without everyone. Your forks may or may not contain every person but that now means that a FLC would need to check all subforks for completeness, so the whole FLC process would involve reviewing every fork from the main FL. If this is the way forward, then so be it. But in the meantime, don't be disheartened by me, please continue and resolve the other issues (which need to be sorted anyway, most are MOS issues) and other folks may overlook the ongoing strife and support anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • "For years, the citations highlighting these acts resided in archives" Try to be more specific on how many years
    • This depends on the citation, since the Medal was created during the late 1800's it could be anywere from 80 to 100 years.--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "For nearly 100 years", then? -- Matthew 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "and only sporadically were printed" sounds like Yoda language when compared with "and were only sporadically printed"
  • As the "American Civil War", "Indian Wars", "Spanish-American War" "Philippine-American War", "Boxer Rebellion", "United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914", "World War II", "Korean War", "Vietnam War", and "Peacetime" sections send the reader off to another page, some prose is needed here.
    • For this one I would like to request some clarification. I believe since the page that the actual list resides on will have an outline of the battle or war I shouldn't put it on this list as well, but I could put a shortened version and say something referring the reader to the corect list page. Would that be acceptable? I did the American Civil War and the Indian Wars entries as an example.--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something like that is fine, although I don't think the sentence "See the link below" is necessary. Also, those main page links should go before the prose. -- Matthew 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done I still need to do a little scrubbing and refining but I believe this requirement has been met.--Kumioko (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Matthew 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved follow-up comments from Matthew

Follow-up

  • All the prose needs citations now:
    • Anything in quotes, such as ""…conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the..."
    • The sentence Because of its nature, the medal is commonly awarded posthumously.
    • The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government
    • I would say each sentence in the Civil war section
  • Unbold "American Civil War" Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Can't do because this forks off to 2 separate articles currently and it will probably be several by the time I'm done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • and "Indian Wars" in the prose, and wikilink
  • More info on Indian Wars: How many were awarded, how many posthumously, etc
  • Unbold "United States expedition to Korea", and link to United States expedition to Korea instead, at the same time removing {{main}}
  •  Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, all facts presented need referencing
  • The rows for John Andrews, Patrick H. Grace, Michael McNamara (Medal of Honor), and Hugh Purvis aren't inline with the others
  • Use piping to link the names with "(Medal of Honor)" so instead of John Andrews (Medal of Honor), it's just John Andrews
  • Unbold "Spanish American War" and link per comment above
  • Reference each fact
  • Same for Samoan War Every other section — Unbolded and link, remove {{main}} where it links to the War and not the list, and reference each presented fact
  • The Haiti list is really narrow. I'd move those pictures to a horizontal gallery
    • I didn't like how it looked so I commented out the images for now. Maybe we can add them back in later.--Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "  This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously" — "This along with the *," sounds clumsy
    • This is the standard formatting and statement used on all the other lists that have made it to featured status which contain posthumous recipients. If I change it here it should be changed on ALL of the others and something should be documented to say what it should say. For now I am leaving this as is.--Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" when no other has the date in the header?
  • Are you kidding, some of this is exactly what was already there and I changed per somone elses comments. Some of this makes sense though and I will start working on it.--Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm not kidding, and which parts were already there? this diff between the 17th when the nom was put forward and now would suggest otherwise. If any other clarification is needed though, let me know.
      • Just a quick note - it's better not to strike out, hide, or otherwise alter people's comments, per the FLC procedure "Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text." Many people will do this when they feel their comments have been addressed to their satisfaction. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
  • Why no prose for the Second Haiti section?
    • There is no article on wikipedia yet for this. Once its created I will gladly add it.--Kumioko (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because there's no existing Wikipedia article, doesn't mean nothing can be added. If we looked at things that way, Wikipedia would never have gotten off the ground -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
        • Thats not what I meant, there is very little information for that period, other than the fact that 2 Marines got the Medal of Honor I have not seen any other documentation that documents the 2nd Campaign. Perhaps you can find some or know someone who does have some.--Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, now I understand. If that is the case, is it definitely a second campaign? Note the wording for the first one: "[It] began on July 28, 1915 and ended in mid-August, 1934. Other occupations include ones that began in 1994 and 2004 (though under the UN banner, the US was the prime mover of the actions)." Perhaps it would be better to move these two recipients to this main section as the dates, 1919-20 coincide with the dates given for the first, 1915-1934? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:58, 28 March, 2008
            •  Done I consolidated the 2 sections on Haiti.--Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support though I had a thought last night. If you gave each section here their own page instead of having 5 or 6 lists and then redirects to all others, brought them all to FLC and passed them, you could use this page as the main one for a Featured Topic. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:24, 29 March, 2008

    • Thanks, My plan has been to get all the Medal of Honor lists up to featured status. Once approved this will be the 2nd, I am working on the Korean war now and should have it ready in a few more days and then I will submit the next one (Probaly either the Philippine-American War, or the Boxer rebellion but I have to create missing pages for most of the ones that are left). The only problem with this is that most of the ones that are left on this page in my opinion don't have enough (less than 10 rows) to make a good list and therefore likely would not pass on their own. I suppose it is possible to simply incorporate these small lists into the main articles but in some cases the main articles are already very long. I do like the idea of making it a featured topic though.--Kumioko (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Great list. One quick thing.

  This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously
Any reason to have both the background and *. I believe the background color is sufficient. PGPirate 15:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would tend to agree however that is the format used by all the other articles with posthumous recipients that have made it to FL status. I can easily remove the * but I only want to do that if we make a consensus to do it for all of the others as well. Otherwise it will be confusing to the readers if we have some one way and other another way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I have to disagree with PGPirate here, for a change ;-) ! Check out the manual of style, read Wikipedia:MOSCOLOR#Formatting issues where it suggests that colour coding alone is insufficient. The asterisk + colour colour coding meets WP:MOS. All good. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Definately a good list. I only have a few comments/suggestions. First, the wdith of the columns should ideally be kept consistent. This is an aethetic issue, but it also has ramifications for the content: the notes section in some of the tables gets really really squished. Take a look at Ross L. Iams' entry and you'll see what I mean. To solve this problem, you could probably shrink the name column(s) a bit. Additionally, the Korean Expedition table should be kept consistent as well, even though there's no images to its right. Also part of the problem is that some of the notes are very wordy, and at times POV. For instance: "desperate hand-to-hand combat", "selflessly hurled himself", "remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire.", etc. Lastly, the posthumous awards is a good, but I'm not sure why you need the grey box AND the star. Just the grey background should suffice. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ERcheck:

  • List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#American_Civil_War — "nearly 1522 were awarded" — the word "nearly" does not make sense in this context as 1522 is an exact number.
  • List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#Invasion_and_occupation_of_Haiti — The way the lead paragraph is worded, it begs the question of whether any Medals of Honor were awarded for the later occupations. If not, then rather than distract with that detail, omit "first" and just put the year.
  • List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#Korean Expedition — "the reason for the presence of the American military expeditionary force in Korea was..." — please provide citation.
  • Lead-in paragraphs for each section — The introductory paragraphs in each section are inconsistent:
    • Some provide citations with regard to details of the conflict, others don't. I favor citations — especially when the phrase "the reason for..." is used, I look for a citation.
    • Some list the number of recipients and others don't — this applies to both the sections with or without main articles. I think each section should give the number of recepients, not just a synposis of the conflict.
    • In general, the language/syntax needs to be tightened up in the prose.

— ERcheck (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2008 (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_Medal_of_Honor_recipients/archive1&oldid=1138483167"