Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Michael J. Daly

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael J. Daly

edit
Promoted ---Eurocopter (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it has all the things required for A class. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure are you referring to the mdashes/ndashes or something else? --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, single–handedly and machine–gun should be single-handedly and machine-gun, like D-Day. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think I fixed all of these. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No problems reported with Dab links or external links. A handful of your images are missing alt text, please check and advise.
Do I need alt text for the ribbons? --Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say yes, but I am unsure if their is consensus on the issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I can do that alt text for these is pretty easy. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of the military service section has Daly start as a 2nd lientuent, then almost immediately bumps him to 1st lieutenant. A date for his promotion to second lieutenant would help add a window of reference for the time it took his to become a first lieutenant, please add such a date forthwith.
For this one I think it is pretty self explanitory. The battlefield commission made him an officer and then within a couple of months he got promoted to First Lieutentant, this is possibly due to other officers being killed or injured and they needed one, not sure and the references dont support that hypothicise. His promotion to Captain was within 2 years of his initial commission. --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did his dad get wounded? Was this during a landing operation or was this during the drive to Germany? The article does not specify, but I would like to know.
I found out his dad was injured in Guadalcanal, in the leg. I will add this to the article in the next couple days. --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Silver Stars are not awarded lightly, perhaps you could elaborate on where he won those. Also, what were the purple hearts for? Obviously one was for the head shot, but what about the other one?
I cannot find any references to support why he got the silver stars, other than that he got them. --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You note is in quotes but I see no source listed for it, please add that to the article.
Which quote are you referring too? --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the same note I find it unacceptable that we can not locate his entire ribbon attire. Surely someone must know exactly what he won, and I would appreciate it very much if you could track down the rest of his service medals and add those to the article as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched all the references (even the less than reliable ones) and I cannot find a complete listing of his medals or how exactly he got the silver stars and purple hearts. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered a freedom of information act request for the info? Its just a thought, but the DOD may have this info available if you ask for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They might but by doing that it could be argued that I would be crossing into original research territory. As much as I hate to say it this one might not be A class material like I thought it was. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the information is coming from the DoD itself, then it would not be original research. It would simply be research. The DoD is a source, after all, and they do keep records that could be used to your advantage here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about his records and they are thought to have been burned up in the fire at the Personnel records center in the 70's. If I submit a request though to be 100% sure they could take several months. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:

Not sure about the status of this ACR given the above comments, but here are a few observations from me:

  • in the lead, should "United States militaries" be "United States military's"?
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the same sentence, I think Medal of Honor should have emdashes around it, e.g. "United States military's highest decoration—the Medal of Honor—for his actions..."
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • per WP:MOS numbers less than ten should be spelt, e.g. "destroying 3 machine gun nests" should be "destroying three machine gun nests";
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His resignation from USMA should probably be put in to context, i.e. explain why he felt he needed to. I assume that he was concerned that perhaps the war might be over when he completed the course and graduated? (Of course, if no source explains this, it probably can't be added, but if it could be found that would be great;
Done - The reason he left was because he wan't a very good cadet. I added some info about this. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Early life section might mention the name of his parents in the first sentence, if you know them both;
Half done - I half fixed this one. I haven't been able to find a ref about his mom but I moved his dad up in the section. --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know why he was given a battlefield commission at all? (one assumes that his previous training at USMA had something to do with it, along with leadership in the field and possibly high numbers of casualties among other officers, but it might be nice to have this confirmed, i.e. was their a specific instance that led to his commissioning?)

Anyway that is it from me. Good work so far, by the way. The article may not be up to A class standard, but it is not to say that the work that you've put in is without merit, so I hope you won't be discouraged. Thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, even if it doesn't get promoted know I will note the reasons and see if I can fix it and then Ill resubmit. In the meantime I have a couple thousand more to create, build up and get promoted. --Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found a reference that answeres some of the issues above but I question if its sufficiently reliable. Could I get some opinions on this for a reference.--Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one myself. I've not heard of Yankee Magazine before, so I can't really comment. If no one objects here, I'd say use it to fill in the gaps and see what happens. It might be the answer to a number of the questions above. Sorry I can't be of more help. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:Support
  • A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate. Yes
  • A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. Mostly Yes
Use of the word 'enemy' in the lead may be considered POV (may be just change to Germans?)
Done --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did he and his wife briefly live in Ireland?
This is not mentioned in any of the references. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a date for his wounding and his subsequent return to his unit as Second Lieutenant?
Nothing on this either. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When was he promoted to First Lieutenant?
None of the references mention when he was promoted to 1st lieutenant other than it was before april 18, 1945.
  • A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Mostly Yes
The lead should be reworked to summarise the article more fully, i.e. its a bit abrupt IMO
Could you give me an example of what its missing. Ill see if I can expand it a bit but if you have a suggestion for something its missing that would be great. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've actually done it already. Previously the lead summarised his life until the awarding of the MOH and that was it, but IMO it looks good now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. Yes
  • A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. Yes

Overall I think this is a good article. And I'm heading towards support if you are able to resolve these issues (assuming the information is available, if its not just say so). Anotherclown (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good IMO. In light of the fact that I feel you have added all the information that is available I will now support its promotion. Top work. Anotherclown (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found an image of the Omaha beach landing and added that. I hope that works ok. --Kumioko (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The fire would explain why no one seems to be sure of the awards and ribbons. It appears from a pass through that most of my issues have been addressed, so I offer my support. I would suggest noting in the article somewhere that the personnel records are thought to be destroyed though, that does seem to be important to the article at present. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am not sure exactly how to incorporate this info, especially since I didn't submit a "formal request" but here is a link to the article explaining the fire. National Personnel Records Center fire. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Michael_J._Daly&oldid=1138360136"