Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 19 August 2009 (Bot tagging closed FLC discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [1].

List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I have fixed all the issues addressed in the previous submission and I think its good to go know. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
*"Austria-Hungary" Should be an en dash.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More than 40 million casualties resulted, including approximately 20 million military and civilian deaths.[2] More than 60 million European soldiers were mobilized" I think the order of the sentences should be switched, and perhaps change one of the "More than"s to "Over".
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the movie Sergeant York" Movies are in italics.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Edward Rickenbacker, who became an American flying ace." Is there a link for "flying ace"? How is the term being used here (i.e. specific number of planes downed or just, "he was a good figher pilot")?
An Ace is someone who downed at least 5 planes. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt text is present, thanks. You can omit details about the provenance of the image, such as "colorized" or "black-and-white" image.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't the time or willpower to check all the notes, but please ensure the following:
    • That only complete sentences have periods at the end. "Led his battalion in multiple attacks against the enemy and repeatedly risked his life to eliminate enemy soldiers, gun emplacements and a tank." is not a complete sentence and should not have a period. Another example: "Continued to fight although suffering from severe wounds."
    • That anything copied verbatim has quotes around it. Whenever possible, try to paraphrase the citations.
  • "During an attack by U-boats." from James J. Madison is not exactly helpful.
  • "In broad daylight and under direct observation of the enemy he advanced to the crest of the hill, rescued 6 of his wounded comrades."-->In broad daylight and under direct observation of the enemy, he advanced to the crest of the hill and rescued 6 of his wounded comrades.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of french colonials" "french" should be capitalized.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Sgt. Foster continued" Spell out "Sgt." in full.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon hearing a call for help from an American tank which had become disabled 30 yards (27 m) from them" Are the metric conversions part of the quoted text? If not, they should be in square brackets: "...which had become disabled 30 yards [27 m] from them"
  • You link some locations, but not others.
Done, sorta. I linked all the locations but it appears that some do not have articles so I need to go back through and remove some of the red links. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • The sorting of the location column is strange. For example, "on the French front" comes after "Off Pula, Austria-Hungary". You may need to use sortkeys with {{sort}}.
  • Em dashes in the blank image captions cells.
Not sure what you mean here, are you talking about the column where the image is? If that is the case should I put the no image image rather than an endash in the middle of the cell? --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "cells". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Comments

  • Surprisingly, Medal of Honor isn't linked at all in the prose; it should be linked the first time it is mentioned.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Edward Rickenbacker, who became an American flying ace." - I think the inclusion of "American" is redundant as, considering the MoH is a US decoration, this is already assumed.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the United States did not officiall enter the war until 1917, I think this should be mentioned. If a person was reading the list at the moment, they might mistakenly assume the US joined the war straight away.
Done. I also made mention of some americans going to fight before the US actually declared war. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the dual MoH recipients of World War I should probably be mentioned in the prose.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endashes should be used between date ranges, rather than "to".
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make mention of a couple things I will be doing to hopfully wrap this up. It will likely be end of the week before I get all this done.

  • I am going to create articles for the recipients that don't have them yet as well as for a couple of the ships (Chestnut Hill) or other red links.
  • I am going to remove some of the red links of some of the locations.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to go through each and every note to make sure that quotes are quoted or paraphrased and ensure there are periods (full stops for you brits :-)) were there should be and none where there shouldn't be. I think its good to go but I might have missed one here and there. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I also checked and fixed a ref and I checked the alt text and fixed woodfill. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text is mostly present, but is missing for three images (see "alt text" button in toolbox at upper right of this review page). The alt text that is present is of low quality: every entry says "An image of a man in his military uniform" which conveys almost no useful information in this context. The alt text should say what's visually distinctive about each image. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could give me an example of a good one that would be appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert in describing military uniforms, but for File:Johannes Anderson.jpg you might try something like "Head and shoulders of a clean-cut square-jawed young man in brown army uniform, U.S. Army World War I style with a campaign hat, in front of a U.S. flag". Perhaps an expert can make it briefer. Eubulides (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with the current descriptions several if not all could be described the same way or similar. This is the biggest problem with alt text, how to describe a picture in less than a thousand words and have it still be meaningful to the reader. This is especially problematic with lists like this with multiple portrait images. I am going to leave the alt text as is for now, but I am still open to changing it if someone has a good way of describing each one in a way that identifies them uniquely. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all the images look alike, then what's the point of including them at all? But they don't all look alike (obviously), and their differences can be described briefly. Putting the same alt text in all the images is worse than omitting the alt text entirely. Better would be to describe the first image in some detail (as I did above, for the 1st image), and then have the later images briefly describe what's different about them. Eubulides (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To try to help out, I added alt text for the first few portaits. They don't look alike, and their alt text differed too. Please try to use this as a guide for the remaining portraits. Also, alt text is needed for the non-portrait images. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • There appears to be some inconsistency with regard dates over two days most are American style (e.g. September 26, 1918 – September 27, 1918 for Deming Bronson) and some are in British style (e.g. 2– 8 October 1918 for George G. McMurtry). Other British style ones are Samuel I. Parker and Charles W. Whittlesey, also the date for George S. Robb uses "and" instead of a dash, is this significant? --Jpeeling (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
    • Not sure why we wait three whole paras in the lead before we're told what the MOH is.
Just because it takes a while to explain WWI. I Can break it into a different section if you think that would be better. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd unlink Canada and link U-boat.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also not sure we need to link to "causality" in this article.
Done. I delinked it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare with over 60 million European soldiers being mobilized,[2] and more than 40 million casualties, including approximately 20 million deaths." - reading this a couple of times, it implies that there were 40 million casualties and 20 million deaths "within a month". Suggest a reword.
    • "to broker a peace." just reads a little odd to me, "a peace".
    • Format of dates in references should be consistent i.e. all human readable or all ISO.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "violation ... U.S. ideas of human rights." - another odd sentence. What, exactly, does "ideas of" mean here?
    • You quickly abbreviate United States to U.S. but then go back to using United States quite a bit...
    • "Due to the nature of this medal" - it's not the nature of the medal, it's the criteria associated with its award. Rephrase I think.
    • " the Medal of Honor was established, only 19 recipients have received the Medal of Honor twice" - MOH repeated, reads poorly.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "are copied in their entirety from the actual Medal of Honor citation" - is this okay, copyright-wise?
Yes, the citations are not subject to copyright as a work of the US Government. With that said I have shortened most of them so that the entire citation is not in it, they are just too long.--Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "machinegun" or "machine-gun"?
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check in the Notes for numbers below 10 which could be written in words per MOSNUM, e.g. "lead 3 other" - led three other...
Is this really appropriate if I am quoting something? --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Near" or "near" in place of action.
Does this mean you want me to remove the word completely or choose one or the other?--Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should all the "near"s sort together? Probably better if they sorted by country or something rather than "near"...
    • USS Mowhawk appears to link to a dab page. I'd check the other ships if I were you.
    • What particular relevance do the two "unknown soldier" See also links have to this specific list?
They where awarded the Medal of Honor but because they are unknown I did not include them in the list. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On top of the problems listed above:
  • Why are there some variations in the date format in the dates column
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • October 2, 1918 – October 8, 1918 for Holderman, should be October 2–8, 1918
Done. For consistency I made them all the full dates because some had different dates or spanned different months. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better to say official MoH citation not actual MoH citation in the italics at the top of the table
  • Inconsistencies in the location column: Why are some of the places linked and others not? e.g In the forest of Argonne, France and in the Boise de Belleau, France
    • The locations that can be linked are, all the rest don't have pages yet. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:REDLINK, how are you going to know when they are linked so that they can be turned blue? Redlinks aren't bad things, they show us gaps in knowledge. You might find as you go along that some of these places do have articles, they are just under slightly different spellings. Woody (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I linked all the locations and then went back and removed the redlinks for 2 reasons. 1 The new rule saying there can't be too many red links in the article and there were a lot of them and 2 I could not tell from the locations where they were. In some cases there were multiple locations in france with the name and it was impossible to identify them specificially without pointing it to a DAB page. --Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I initially found that with the VC list but I went through to the unit page, found out where they were operating, then went through to the particular operations page to check and then checked a few sources and every time you could pinpoint the correct one. I don't think that the column should be inconsistent. Woody (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that the inconsistency in capitalising "in"
  • I also think that perhaps sort the "nears" according to the location
  • Why has Latham got a huge citation compared to the others?
  • Why do the citations differ at all? Some are short succinct versions, some are full quotes eg Sampler: His company having suffered severe casualties during an advance under machinegun fire, was finally stopped. Cpl. Sampler detected the position of the enemy machineguns on an elevation. Armed with German hand grenades, which he had picked up, he left the line and rushed forward in the face of heavy fire until he was near the hostile nest, where he grenaded the position. His third grenade landed among the enemy, killing 2, silencing the machineguns, and causing the surrender of 28 Germans, whom he sent to the rear as prisoners. As a result of his act the company was immediately enabled to resume the advance This could be reduced to Sampler detected a machine-gun position that was firing on his company, he grenaded the german position and caused the surrender of 28 germans.
  • Why do some of the notes column list citations but others such as Talbot list what amounts to trivia.(First Marine aviator to receive the Medal of Honor.)
  • I think you need some way of indicating the double recipients.
  • Is http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm reliable? Seems self-published to me
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_for_World_War_I/archive2&oldid=308803780"