Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)
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 Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [1].

List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor) edit

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk •
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who were awarded the Medal of Honor. It is hopefully the last in a set of five lists of USNA alumni. All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The lead looks fine, but I was going through the notes and I noticed many errors (some I have fixed) but I recommend seeking a copyedit of the notes. In addition, are some of these notes actual quotes from the sources because using "courage" without quotes is WP:POV, if it is a quote, please use quotation marks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "courage and leadership" to actions, will ask Julian to ce. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the list, and admitted I could find nothing to change. Could you please provide examples of said errors? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it was done? Or I must be smoking. Support -- meets WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The latter seems more likely. ;) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) After seeing the above comments, I was afraid that I would not find anything ;)
  • "A few are also given " A few who? Remove "also".
  • "prior to"-->before
  • "14 year old"-->14-year-old
  • "of the United States Navy Vice-presidential candidate" Missing semicolon.
  • "actions while commanding officer"-->actions as a commanding officer (multiple occurences)
  • Image caption: "David McCampbell in his fighter plane, probably an F6F Hellcat" I wouldn't take risks on OR on the "probably" statement. Is there an expert who can verify that?
    • I cut the probably section, just says fighter plane now, which it certainly is. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spanish-American War"-->Spanish–American War (multiple occurences).

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved image issues
Dabomb87 asked me to do an image review on this (probably so he doesn't look like the bad guy). So here we go:

Firstly a note about the images from http://www.history.navy.mil. Images from that site are PD if the image can be verified as being from there. Currently many of these images have a dead source pointing directly to the (no longer existing) "image". However by searching the site many (all?) of these can probably be verified: For example: File:Frank Jack Fletcher-g14193.jpg. The source is dead so cannot verify PD. But it could replacing it by this would verify PD. I haven't made this change so it can be left as an illustrative example. (I will mark similar cases to this below as #)

RE File:Frank Jack Fletcher-g14193.jpg, updated link, still at NHC and PD — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Adm Frank F Fletcher.jpg (#)
    • Another Naval Historical Center photo and PD (see pic info and link), see notes below. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Catlin AW.jpg, sources are dead links so cannot verify it is PD (i.e. US Marine Corps is the author).
    • Found Arlington Cemetery page where it is marked "USMC photo". Because a site is taken down doesn't remove it's PD status. Update image page and also left old links intact. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:William A. Moffett.jpg, source is a dead links so cannot verify it is PD (i.e. Navy is the author).
    • Can't verify this one, see general rant. rm'd from article. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wendell C. Neville.jpg, source points to an image but it is broken so cannot verify PD status
  • File:Bauer HW USMC.jpg, source is a dead link so cannot verify it is PD (i.e. US Marine Corps is the author).
    • replaced with a new one I will upload in a few minutes to commons from NHC: File:HaroldBauer.jpg and see general rant below. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RichardOKane.jpg (#) No source given, but probably could be found.
  • File:Butch O'Hare.jpg, nothing given to verify the claim that this is a "work of the United States Federal Government" and therefore PD
    • This is a Naval Historical Center photo from National archives, added web link showing that. Also note, all NHC material is PD, proof here where it says clearly their material is PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lt com r e byrd.jpg No actual source given but will AGF due to the similar photos here
    • This is a Library of Congress Bain photo and is properly tagged as such. Bain photos are all PD. No issues with this one. I added another URL though. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few which needed very minor fixes which I took care of. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not ask Rambo to ask it because I didn't want to be the "bad guy", but because I am no good at these type of things. Please don't take it as me trying to hide things or have others take the blame for my actions. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I meant no slander on Dabomb87's name, I was making a joke that didn't come across very well. I just meant that at times a lot of people hate image reviews (me included). I am quite happy taking the blame for this, as I did the review voluntarily – anything in it is my fault and no-one elses. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images look good. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General rant directed at no one: This is directed at a general situation, not at any person. I've also seen this trend at other Featured Candidate pages. Why do we have to reverify an image's PD status because of something like links changing? If it was PD, it's always PD. It does not lose that legal status because some website dropped off the net and User:JoeBlow can't find it anymore. But as it is, there is a trend to say "I can't find it, so you have to prove it even though we all know it was PD". Here I'm talking cases like it was sourced to a known PD site or even just trusting the uploader didn't invent a URL, but no, we say "the guy could have been faking a URL, so prove it again, to me". This is all unnecessary and avoidable by using a method that is used on Commons where trusted users verify a flickr image's status for Commons; it's called Flickr review. We could have "PD review", where trusted users verify a PD status and tag the image with a template. That way, two years later when User:JaneBlow posts a FLC/FAC, etc, you, me, and others don't waste our time reinventing the wheel. Not to mention a known PD image can't be used anymore because a URL changed or whatever. Do we do this with images from books? Not yet, but we probably will...Do we say "I don't own that book and it's not in my local library so you have to prove it's PD from 1900 by sending me the book", nope we don't yet, but that's basically what we do with images. Obviously, I'm not talking cases such as when the uploader didn't source the image at all. Food for thought. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments another good MOH list.
    • "...with the mission of educating..." I'm not a big fan of this kind of business speak. If it's a quotation then fine and it can go in quotes, otherwise I'd prefer a less jargony start (personal opinion mind you...)
got a suggestion? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, not really.... Sorry, I guess since I'm the only objector, and it's a mere personal preference, you can ignore me! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Class of 1881 was the first class to provide officers to the Marine Corps. A few are given the option of..." reads a little bit funny to me, the first sentence talks of an historic class, then the following sentence talks about current procedure. Just doesn't quite sequence right to me...
I'm open to ideas. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe make the 1881 sentence a run-on from the previous sentence, "...with the Class of 1881 being first to provide..." Then start the next sentence with "Graduates of the Academy are given the option..." The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done here and related pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...emphasizes engineering fields..." picky, but could be misconstrued. Prefer "emphasizes various fields of engineering."
Fixed here and in related lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the year the Academy was founded needs to go before "The Class of 1881...", not wait until the second para.
    • "The first alumni ..." as discussed previously (and I am happy to be corrected if wrong) when used in the singular, this should be "alumnus".
fixed here and in related lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am ignorant to Vera Cruz, but the heading has it like that and subsequent mentions in the table have it as Veracruz. Is this to be expected?
Veracruz is correct, fixed title header — Rlevse • Talk • 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wainwright has a hyphen instead of an en-dash in his Notability text.
Fixed. and Cushing too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Townsend has a typo in his admiral.
fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you possibly fit "Class year" in the Year column? I'd forgotten the note that explained Class year by the time I got round to wondering how a guy could get awarded a WWI MOH in 1906... (my own fault but something worth thinking about?)...
We had that there but someone, I think Truco, had us take it out. Pls reach agreement on this. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes the column less ambiguous once you're away from the key, so I'd suggest adding Class back in. What was the rationale behind its removal? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He thought it was "too tight" or something like that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't buy it. It makes the column indisputable. I would add Class. Then I'm done. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gilmore could use an en or em dash instead of a hyphen in his month range in his notability column.
fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Stockdale really need clarifying as a "Vietnam-era Naval aviator" since he's in the Vietnam subsection?
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk •
    • You've used MOH but not put it as (MOH) behind "Medal of Honor" in the lead. Uber picky but we should but abbreviations in parentheses before we use them.
    • Claud A Jones doesn't really need Medal of Honor to be linked in his notability column.
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you add Medal of Honor recipients as another category for the list?
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:46, 31 March 2009 (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_United_States_Naval_Academy_alumni_(Medal_of_Honor)/archive1&oldid=1166569765"