Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War/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 Vietnam War edit

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meet all the criteria for a featured list and is the next in the Medal of Honor recipient lists to meet this criteria. Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 10 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) 12:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is South Vietnam linked over and over again, and a lot of the provinces and cities are not? Even when pages exist. Surely you can't just avoid redlinks by choosing not to link? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at adding more link for the provinces. Although having red links on a page isn't in itself bad, I also don't think we should create a sea of red links for provinces which may never have an article created. --Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "occurred from " not sure I like the use of occur here, I guess it's picky (I feel occur is like an instantaneous thing) but would "took place" be acceptable? No big deal.
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term Vietnam Conflict is often used to refer to events which took place between 1959 and April 30, 1975." this seems to be repetitive...
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United States supported" needs a hyphen to be consistent.
Done I think. --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see the point at all of having sortable tables which are then split by letter. Further annoying because the cols change width from section to section.
Done - I combines all the tables into one. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think "west of Da Nang" should sort by "w", perhaps by "d" would be more useful. Same with instances of "near...". Please check all others.
I can't seem to remember how to do this, could you point me to a list --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's "a satchel charge"?
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extreme heroism", "extraordinary efforts" etc - unless these are direct quotes (which then need ref) they're somewhat floral.
These are mostly direct quotes but I'll clean them up. The references for all the comments are in the notes column header. Do I need to add it next to each quote as well? Seems kinda unecessary since the same ref applies to all of them. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "August 26, 1967-March 4, 1973" check WP:DASH for the correct dash.
Done --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to aide critically wounded" isn't that just "aid"?
Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 5 & 6 need en-dash.
Done --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also noticed I missed some alt text on some of the images so Ill fix that as well. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "himself" (see my PC comment on the other MoH review).
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. With that said there are a lot of women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan so it is possible that it could happen. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should become a (useful) footnote on these lists... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I have added a cleaned up version of the note to the Vietnam and boxer rebellion lists and I will add it to the other lists by the end of today. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good but refs needed for both the female recipient and the current status of females serving in combat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but to me this is really steering a long way off the subject. I am thinking that removing the quote and rewording the Medal of Honor explaination might be more appropriate. Otherwise we risk diluting the explaination with a bunch of info and references that pertain only loosely to the message...IMO --Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be off the subject to a degree but your assertion that it is awarded only to males is not strictly true, and being an encyclopedia, all I'm hoping for is a complete and correct picture of the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the new wording and see if its more accurate?--Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 16 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) 09:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
again the notes in the column applies to all the individuals. Also for this one, this list is very large and adding text to each row isgoing to add a lot of extra bytes. --Kumioko (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'll accept the length grounds on this one since its long, although this is an exception and not a rule. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from NMajdan
Comments
  • Communist–supported and United States-supported Using two different dashes. I think the hyphen is more appropriate here.
  • Also, please explain to me the {{ACMH}} template. This is the first time I've seen it and I feel it falls short of adequate sourcing. I'd like to see something more specific and where this data came from.
  • Its just a hatnote stating that some information may be from the Army Center for Military History. The references refering to this also pertain to this. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, it seems the list is covered under references 5 & 6.—NMajdan•talk
  • Marvin R. Young needs the reference in the note column properly formatted.
  • Done I removed this reference. It was a poor one. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A suggestion and maybe other reviewers can voice there opinion on this. Maybe use a hidden sort key in the Rank column to sort by, instead of alphabetically, by actual rank. So, for example, instead of 1) Captain, 2) Colonel, 3) Lt Colonel, and 4) Major it would be 1) Captain, 2) Major, 3)Lt Colonol, and 4) Colonel.
  • Thats a good point I will look into that and leave a comment here when I am done. It shouldn't take long. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, great. Again, this won't affect my eventual support or opposition, but I think it would be a better sort order.—NMajdan•talk
  • Already done - I checked and it already sorts by rank vice rank name. Its kinda confusing though because different ranks mean different things for different services. For example a Captain in the Army, air force and Marines is an 03. A captain in the navy and coast guard is an 06. --Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need another source in the first paragraph of the lead. Lot of statistics there with no references.
    • Done I can't find a reference so I removed it. I will try and put it back at some point in theh future if I can find a suitable reference. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas R. Norris and Delbert O. Jennings have minor capitalization issues.
  • Is there a more appropriate cite template or format for the first reference?
  • This is just a note and not really a reference. --Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recipient must have distinguished themselves at the risk of their own life recipient is singular but themselves and their are plural.
  • Im a little confused at the problem here. This is worded correctly. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it? Again, recipient is singular by the rest of the sentence reads as plural. I think recipient should also be plural.—NMajdan•talk
  • Some images are still missing alt text.
  • Thanks I just noticed this earlier today myself. Not sure how I missed them other than there are just so many recipients. I should have that done in the next day or so. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done All images now have alt text. --Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some notes have periods, others do not.
  • This is because some notes are in full sentance form and others are too short to be a full sentance. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some, yes. But not all. For instance, Carlos J. Lozada and Andre C. Lucas have periods while Donald R. Long and Allen J. Lynch do not and yet they appear to be of very similar syntactical styles. At least, in my limited grammatical knowledge that appear the same.—NMajdan•talk
  • Done I went through all the comments and cleaned a bunch of them. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • absorbing the full blast with his body. ,He continued This note needs to be fixed and the second sentence needs a period. Later became a U.S. Senator Needs a period since its the second sentence in the note.—NMajdan•talk

—NMajdan•talk 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I am going out of town tomorrow and will be gone for a week so I wanted to provide my support for this article prior to leaving. My support is dependent on the above issues being resolved. I humbly ask the FL directors to verify that my requested changes have been made (unless other criticism of my review is raised) before counting my support.—NMajdan•talk 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the status on NMajdan's final comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done I just finished the last of them. --Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco

General
  • Dabs, external links check out fine.
  • Since User:Jwillbur had a fair amount of edits to the article, he should be contacted to inform him of this nomination.
  • There are a couple of images without alt text, as seen in the tool run in the toolbox.
Lead
  • The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, Vietnam Conflict, and in Vietnam as the American War, took place from 1959 to April 30, 1975. -- why not have the other names in parenthesis? To prevent disruption of sentence flow with all the commas and names.
  • Theres no direct link to a wiki article as to what the exact US foreign policy was in Vietnam at the war's conclusion?
  • Thats an interesting point do you have any recommendations to an article to link too? --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Vietnam War 246 Medals of Honor were received, 154 of them posthumously. -- comma after Vietnam War
  • He also led a group to defeat an enemy force causing them to retreat and leave behind 54 of their dead and many weapons including grenades. -- This is a bit confusing, did the enemy lose the dead and weapons, or did his group?
  • Thomas Bennett was a conscientious objector who received the medal for his actions as a medic[7] and three chaplains received it including Vincent R. Capodanno who served with the Marine corps and was known as the Grunt padre. -- comma before including
List
  • I see a random |. and — above the table?
  • Stephen Doane's entry is not formatted correctly.--Truco 503 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: please check that the use of endashes is correct. I found a few that weren't, where endashes were used instead of hyphens. I've fixed a few, but it needs fresh eyes to find them. Endashes should be used for page and date ranges, as well as denoting interconnectedness. For adverbs, homophones, etc. hyphens should be used. (For example it should be hand-to-hand, not hand–to–hand; also it should be 42-man, not 42–man). Otherwise the list looks fine to me. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I fixed a couple based on your comments...I think but you might want to double check to make sure I didn't accidentally change one I shoudln't have. The whole endash or hyphen thing is still a bit fuzzy to me. --Kumioko (talk)


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_Vietnam_War/archive1&oldid=1207850186"