Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Boxer Rebellion/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by Dabomb87 22:12, 19 March 2010 [1].

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Boxer Rebellion edit

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next list in the Medal of Honor series of list that meets the Featured list criteria. I still have a few red links for articles that need to be created but I will have those done in the next couple days. Kumioko (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold
*Comments
  • Hans Hansen has a } instead of a " in his note.
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the cites for like 95% of these guys? I realize some FLs don't have it while others do, but what makes (for example) Harry C. Adriance get his own cite? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done they are all cited. The citations are all the same so the citation is in the column heading rather than clutter up the table with extra bytes. The ones that are individually cited are those that are also mentioned on the Marine Corps whos who site and I identified them by exception because there are only a few. --Kumioko (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the language is just boilerplate from similar lists (such as Korean War), but is there any reasoning for the split between "is commonly awarded posthumously" and only one guy winning posthumously? What was different about this war? Was it not common practice at this point in time? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the commonly received posthumously partially comes from the MOH stats page, partially from the fact that the rules have changed over time to the point were in order for a person to recieve it they almost have to have been killed, comes from the fact that over time the rules a lot have been back then it was still pretty common for people to receive it. During this conflict it was still common to recieve it for non posthumous actions. I hope that helps to explain it a little. Also, the first part is intended to explain the medal itself and the second bit is more to explain the recipients from the conflict. --Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All articles for the recipients have been created. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Don't like the linking of Chinese and then China. Perhaps just unlink China.
done --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The uprising began..." followed by "They attacked..." - I think we've lost sight of the subject here?
Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was not helpful" can you provide context to this statement?
Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distinguishes himself " don't want to come over all PC but is it only awarded to men?
On this one, there has only been one female and she was a civilian during the civil war Mary Walker who later had her award rescinded and then had it given back about 90 years later. Other than that one case they are all men and although the medal rules don't specifically say a woman can't recieve it its extremely unlikely to happen. In order to receive the medal it must be received in a combat situation and women are not currently eligible for combat military specialties in the US. With that said there are a lot of women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan so it is possible that it could happen. --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the 59 recipients" no need to repeat 59 since the previous sentences made this clear.
Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " receive it posthumously was a marine named Harry Fisher, who was also the first marine ever to posthumously receive the Medal" reads clumsily for me, you repeat posthumous and marine and receive... any chance of a re-word?
Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Adriance's note referenced (and with capitals in the title, please make them lower case)?
Done I did this because thats how it appears in the reference. I made it lower case though and I also changed the other one for Dan Daly--Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crossed the river in a small boat while under heavy fire he assisted in destroying buildings occupied by the enemy" needs some punctuation. And why this (and others, e.g. Daly, Fisher) have no direct quotation from his citation?
Done --Kumioko (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " enemy at Tientsin, China, 20 June 1900" different date format from all the others.
Done I reworded this--Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was thrice wounded" since this doesn't appear to be a direct quote, then "three times" would be more appropriate than "thrice"...
Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Repulsed an attack by 300 Chinese Imperialist soldiers and Boxer militants with a bayonet charge" presumably he led that charge rather than was that charge...?
Done --Kumioko (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading has a spare period (down to the template, no doubt)...
Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Speaking strictly for myself, I would like to see an inline citation for each of the individuals in their respective notes tab within the table. If you can show me that this requirement is not necessary for a featured list I will rethink my position on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is currently in the notes column heading and it applies to all the individuals. I can add it to each one but since the reference in the column heading applies to all of them, adding it to each and every row looks a bit cluttered. --Kumioko (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Here I think you could add the citations since length is not an issue; ive held this standard for A-class lists and after thinking it through I will hold to this standard for this list page since to me there really isn't a good reason not to. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - I still think its uneeded and makes the table look cluttered but its done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The use of citations just for the sake of it makes the table look cluttered, and there's precedence for F-lists to not have ind. citations if one fits all, therefore I suggest you get rid of the citations and write in the lead that [4] cites everything. Sandman888 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose from Truco

General
  • Alt text, contributors, external and dab links check out fine.
Lead
  • The Boxer Movement or Boxer Rebellion was a Chinese uprising from November 1899 to September 7, 1901, against foreign influence in areas such as trade, politics, religion and technology that occurred in China during the final years of the Manchu rule (Qing Dynasty). --> The Boxer Movement, or Boxer Rebellion, was a Chinese uprising from November 1899 to September 7, 1901, against foreign influence in areas such as trade, politics, religion and technology that occurred in China during the final years of the Manchu rule (Qing Dynasty). (In addition, is there no exact date for November '89?)
Done I also went through the refs and cannot find a specific start date. They all mention November 1899. --Kumioko (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It began as an anti–foreign, anti–imperialist, peasant–based movement who attacked foreigners who were building railroads and violating Feng shui. -- the first who should be that
Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also went after Christians they felt were responsible for the foreign domination of China. --> Christians who they felt were responisble for foreign domination of China were also targeted.
Done--Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also went after Christians they felt were responsible for the foreign domination of China. In June 1900, the Boxers invaded Beijing and killed 230 non–Chinese. -- non-chinese what? invaders? or just in general?
Just in general, if they lived there and werent chineses they were subject to retaliation. --Kumioko (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before it ended tens of thousands of Chinese Christians, Catholic and Protestants were killed, mostly in the Shandong and Shanxi provinces. -- Comma before tens
Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The government of Empress Dowager Cixi gave her support to the boxers causing foreign diplomats, civilians, soldiers and even some Chinese Christians to retreat to the legation quarter. -- what was the legation quarter (link? explanation?)
DoneI added a link --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Boxer rebellion 59 American servicemen received the Medal of Honor for their actions. -- comma before 59
Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with numbers, per MOS:NUM. You have instances of digits greater than 10 as fifty-five and 59. (the only exception to spelling out in this case would be for sentences that start with numbers.)
Done--Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add an overall summary and overview of the list, ie. who was the first recipient, last, other notable recipients.
I would have done this however the recipients for this action received them in groups so there was no first last or middle recipient. Most recieved it for the same days, and the medal was presented on the same days. If you have some suggestion as to some notable thing to call out specifically please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Table
  • The table looks very stretched and some columns don't present the info really well. I would say decrease the size of the notes column and expand columns like the 'place of action'
I don't understand the problem here. It looks ok on my computer using IE8. --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of near doesn't fly by me, unless is it being used by the ref? If so, explain what it means in a footnote and why its not considered in the actual location.
Not sure why there is a problem with this this one. If you are referring to the near in the table for the locations that is from the reference and I think it describes as accurately as possible where the action took place. If the action didnt take place in the city, then they typically say near. The references usually don't get as specific as saying something like in a wooded field one mile south east of the city of X. They just say near. In some cases other more detailed biographies might get into that detail, but in most cases they don't or it hasn't been done. --Kumioko (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 is used a lot, make it a general reference. (See this example)
Cannot do this - I completely agree with you about the reference issue and in fact I previously only had the reference in theh column of the table to denote that it applied to all. User TomStar protested and required me to change it. Based on this I cannot change this until a consensus has been reached about which is more appropriate. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect, why would the current version be correct? The same reference is used more than 26 times, which is the purpose of the WP:REF#General reference.--Truco 503 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading
  • Is this used as a ref in the article or just a see also type link?--Truco 503 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is just a reference that contains more info about some of the individuals. --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But its not being used to source info in the article right?--Truco 503 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- --Truco 503 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan
Comments
  • anti–foreign, anti–imperialist, peasant–based and non–Chinese Per WP:HYPHEN, these should be hyphens, not dashes.
  • I made a comment on another FLC regarding the ordering of the Rank column. While not a requirement, I would like to suggest it here as well.
    • Ok, the sort seems to be working correctly as far as I can tell. Again, the problem you encounter is that the ranks differ from service to service so its a little confusing. --Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[D]istinguished himself by meritorious conduct" Served under the name of Henry W. Davis. I think you need some type of punctuation after the closed quotation whether a period or semicolon.
  • I actually disagree with the need for the same source to be used on every single line. I have worked on various sports-related FLs (like this one) and I get by with separating out General references, which apply to the whole list and more specific ones that back up a certain statement. Frankly, I think having nearly every column header and every note tagged with the same reference looks bad. Having General references does not violate WP:FL? and WP:SAL nor does is violate my interpretation of WP:FOOT and WP:CITE.
    • I agree the problem is that another reviewer feels the opposite so the dilemna I face is do I leave them in place to get the first reviewers support or remove them. --Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of improvements have been made to this list over the course of the nomination.—NMajdan•talk 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support. I am going out of town tomorrow so my editing will be very limited if not non-existent for a week so I want to offer my support for this article before I left town. My weak support is due both to the one outstanding punctuation issue above as well as the reference issue that is being discussed. One editor feels that the same source should be used 50+ times while I am in support of simply using it as a general reference. However, I understand that the editor feels he cannot undo this sourcing change in fear of losing the support of the other reviewer. I have brought this up on the FLC talk page so hopefully other reviewers will voice their opinion on the matter.—NMajdan•talk 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also advocate the removal of the general reference from each and every line. It looks, frankly, stupid. Even if you have to say in words that, for instance "citations are derived from reference [4]" (if you get my drift) then it's a whole heap better than using the reference dozens and dozens of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done based on repeated arguments against the use of the reference repeatedly in the table I have eliminated it to one instance and added a comment to the reference itself explaining it relates to all data in the table. If I need to further clarify please let me know. -Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be presented better as a general reference like in the article I mentioned above.--Truco 503 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I moved it as you suggested. I think. --Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite, but I fixed it for ya.--Truco 503 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Much better with only one reference. Regarding layout, I'd go with the occasional picture on the right/left instead of an almost empty column, but that's a matter of taste. Sandman888 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2010 (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_for_the_Boxer_Rebellion/archive1&oldid=1207850152"