|
|
This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.
Please feel free to leave comments and/or be bold and improve the article directly.
If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. |
 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 12, 2004, July 12, 2005, July 12, 2006, July 12, 2007, July 12, 2008, July 12, 2009, and July 12, 2010. |
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
Medal of Honor is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
|
|
| FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. |
[edit] Postnominal abreviation
Which form is correct: John Doe MH, John Doe MOH or John Doe MoH? Does it come before or after the (Cpt. USMC Retd.) suffix when that is used? Roger (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Postnomials generally aren't used for U.S. decorations, so there is no standard. — jwillbur 16:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- While postnomials are not routinely used, they do exist (primarily used in official documents as shorthand for accomplishments/recognitions). The official abbreviation and correct (but, as jwilbur observed, rarely used) postnomial for The Medal is MOH (all caps). As to the sequence, military tradition is to list the MOH closest to the recipient's name, and often without punctuation (e.g., John Doe MOH, Capt USMC (Ret.)). Patrickwooldridge (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- The word is postnominal. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Tiffany Cross for combat or non-combat? The article says both
The following section seems to contradict itself, listing the Tiffany Cross for non-combat and then stating that it was presented only for combat. I am presuming that it was the combat version and the first statement is incorrect, but I am not an expert in military awards and someone who knows this should fix this passage:
- Between 1919 and 1942, the Navy issued two separate versions of the Medal of Honor, one for non-combat bravery and the other for combat related acts. Official accounts vary, but generally the non-combat Medal of Honor was known as the Tiffany Cross, after the company that manufactured the medal. The Tiffany Cross was first issued in 1919, but was rare and unpopular, partly because it was presented only for combat,[25] while noncombat awards remained the previous version.[26]
Both can't be true (at least without some explanation), so this passage needs some attention.
-Fenevad (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Henry Breault received his medal for heroism when his boat sank following a collision, and the photo shows him wearing the normal star-shaped medal. So it's probably correct that the Tiffany Cross was the version awarded for combat. 66.232.240.27 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
War thats Why! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.107.171.251 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Medal of Honor
Why was the Medal of Honor given? and Who awards this honor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.107.171.251 (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you serious? There's a whole article to answer those questions. This talk page exists only to discuss improvements to that very article. Click the "article" tab at to the top, start reading, and see how you go. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] FA concerns
This article was promoted in 2004 and no longer meets the featured article criteria. There are many maintenance tags present. I added quite a few until I realized that adding more was not very useful. The quality of some sources are clearly not up to FA standard; I have marked several of those. There are dead links to sources. This is only a sampling of the problems that need fixing and this isn't an in depth review. The issues pointed out need addressing or a featured article review will be needed. Brad (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
