Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Commandant of the Marine Corps/archive1


 * 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 22:32, 20 June 2009.

Commandant of the Marine Corps

 * Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to meet the criteria to be a Featured List. Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I do not deem this as a problem per sey I am requesting comment on the title. I submitted the article with the title it was created with but I think it would be more appropriate as Commandants of the Marine Corps.--Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest either Commandants of the Marine Corps or List of Commandants of the Marine Corps. Geraldk (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The current title is fine. WP guidelines say to never have a title be plural, and it doesn't have to have "List of" just because it includes a list. cf. the FL Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article is about the position, but it's not long enough to have List of Administrators split off from it, just like your article. Reywas92 Talk  01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the main article on the Commandant of the Marine Corps, so we don't need to pluralize nor add "List of". Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a great list, but I can see more coming from it, namely a short history of the position. You reference a 580-page book devoted to the Commandant, so I'm sure some more info could fit in here. In a paragraph in the lead, include the first and current Commandants, as well as the longest/shortest-serving Commandants. Has/will President Obama nominate a new one? Looking through the names, note that Anthony Gale was the only one to be fired. It's in the see also, but note that the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps is next in line and many of which were upgraded. You've listed the home, but also include that the office is at Headquarters Marine Corps. And is the home an actual house provided for him where he would live? These shouldn't be too hard to expand on. Otherwise, this is an excellent article! Reywas92 Talk 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Thanks, I will add some more details. You mention some trivia type things such as first, current, longest serving, etc.  I will add in a column for notes to cover some of these and I will expand the intro and opening paragraphs to cover more details. Not sure if the president is planning on picking a new one yet but I would expect it in the future at some point. Yes he actually lives in the house.--Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that 1936-1972 his term was three years from Jan 1 to Dec 31 and 1972-1999 it was four years from July 1 to Jun 30. Does this have any significance, and should it be in the lead? You've added some great interesting notes! Reywas92 Talk  16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know if that is by design or by accident and I cannot find anything to state either way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's related, but Barrow's note says "Was the first Commandant to serve, by law, a regular four-year tour as a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff". I made a few further copyedits, shortened long notes, moved HQMC to the lead. I Support this excellent list. Reywas92 Talk  20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, I doubt it will happen soon. In recent times, the Commandant usually serves for several years, and then retires (or steps down in the case of Gen Jones) at the time of his choosing, and not at the behest of the President. There is also some info in United States Marine Corps that might be adapted here. I'll also note that I support this nom, but I'm incredibly biased here. :P  bahamut0013  words deeds   06:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There must be something notable about Pate.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought so too along with Gen Hagee but aside from serving there doesn't seem to be any source that mentions duing anything notible during his tenure.--Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Although the list portion of this is an excellent list, there is a fundamental problem with the prose portions. If this is meant to be the main article about the position of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, then there should be a lot more content relating to what the office is, what its history is, what commandants have done in the past, how their office is set up (see Chief of Naval Operations), what happened to former Commandants (see President of the United States), etc. This is one of those cases where there needs to be a lot more prose to make this a featured list. I would advie the creation of a new section or two between the lead and the list to accomodate this. Further, the lead right now, especially near its end, is a series of short, choppy paragraphs and the transitions between sentences could use some work to make it flow more smoothly. Finally, the responsibilities section should not simply be one long quote from the US code. That can be turned into prose that offers much more description than dry legalese bereft of context. Geraldk (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I believe therre needs to be a bigger better article about what the commandant is, what its history is, etc this is intended to be a list of commandants and not the full article. I will fix the prose and clean up the lead. I expanded it based on other users recommendations.--Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the lead just needs some clean-up and you will still likely want to turn the responsibilities section into a short, prose section of the lead. It also seems to me the article is misnamed after all. If the intention what you are nominating is just the list of Commandants, then by definition the list would need to be separated from the main article. I'm going to mention the question to the other reviewers to ask how they would recommend dealing with that. Geraldk (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine how it is now, and I might even oppose if there was a split. Currently, there is not enough information to really need a separate article and list. Maybe in the future when more info is added, but if the list were to be split out now, all we'd have is a stub about the position and a list with a lead that is redundant to the former. Sure, you can add more about the history, but one page is fine. There is no problem with having an FL for a main article/list. Reywas92 Talk  23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then my original opposition comment stands. If this remains the main article for the position of Commandant, then it needs a lot more about the position itself before it meets the prose (1) and comprehensiveness (3) standards for FL. Geraldk (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not meant to be a comprehensive article about the commandant. As Reywas92 stated there just isn't enough info at this time to have a seperate article.  We can add a seperate article in the future when more info is added but for now we just don't have it.  I believe that perhaps with some minor pruning of the lead this is a good list, I agree that it does not have enough content for a full article. I understand your comments but again this is just meant to be a list.--Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be, but unfortunately right now this is the article about the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I have no problem with there not being a split, but split or not, in the meantime, for this to meet both the prose and comprehensiveness requirements, it needs more thorough information about the office, its responsibilities, etc. Specifically, it needs:
 * a rewrite the responsibilities section so it is a prose explanation rather than a block quote of the US Code.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * more information about the nomination and confirmation process.
 * more information about how the commandant's office is organized, like with Chief of Naval Operations
 * more information about what happens to most commandants - do they retire? why? after how long? have any ever been pushed out?
 * the lead should encompass some information from the table, for example first, most recent, only one to be fired, etc. (and why was he fired in the first place???)
 * there's really nothing interesting about Hagee or Pate?
 * Unfortunately, not really.--Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Geraldk (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I see what you mean, no problem give me a day or 2 and I will get that taken care of. By the way the CNO article doesn't have much more than this one.--Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding how the office is organized: a few people have looked to Chief of Naval Operations as an example, but the equivalent to that section for the Marine Corps is at Headquarters Marine Corps. And I would be very opposed to a merger here. In any case, there isn't a great deal more information at the CNO article than the CMC article... not that there is a great deal to add. The role of the Commandant hasn't changed much in 234 years.  bahamut0013  words deeds   16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just mentioned CNO because it included a small bit of information that was lacking in this article. That's the reason I only mentioned it in regards to one suggestion for improvement. And I don't think all the information from the HQMC article should be merged either as much of it is simply a list of offices. Whether or not the role of the Commandant hasn't changed much since its creation, the article needs to be clear about what that role is, both in its immediate sense as a position and in a historical sense as that position has interacted with historical events. As an example, see President of the United States, though there's no reason for this article to be anywhere as long as the POTUS one. There are a lot of topics that can be covered about a position like this one. Or for other featured lists about positions with leads that provide a lot of depth see List of French monarchs, List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty, or Monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. Geraldk (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Geraldk, take a look at it now and see if you want me to add anything else. I need to add a couple references to the data I just added but let me know if you want any more content. Again, this is just a list and I can create a seperate article for the Commandant. --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's coming along. Take a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, especially the section on flow, for more on what I mean about the lead being choppy. Geraldk (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the lead a little bit and I see a couple other small changes I am going to make but I am still opposed to making this the main article for the commandant. I think that this list has about as much as it can hold before it becomes more about what the commandant is and less about the commandants as a list. I created a seperate article to discuss the commandants history, election process, organization, etc here.  I still have a lot to do to flush it out but it will give you an idea about what it will look like.--Kumioko (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - much improved lead and prose. Geraldk (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks..Whew. --Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Prose needs work.
 * You might remove "also" in the first and second paragraphs. It's up to you, but two of them is too much. I'd use neither, unless is feels clunky without.
 * Done. I think it turned out ok. I also reword something else that seemed unnecessary.--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Commandant is nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate[3] and by statute, the commandant is appointed as a four-star general." Thought it was a comma splice. It's not, but needs a comma boundary before "by". But why not get into semicolons, one of which might provide just the right strength of boundary here: "... Senate [3]; by statute, the ...".
 * Done. I took out the "by statute, the commandant" I think it flows better. --Kumioko (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd remove "total", and "located" (which is missing anyway from the second "in").
 * Not sure where you are talking about for this one.


 * MUCH prefer US without the fly-specks, but we're in a bind in citing legal code names. The inconsistency is odd.
 * Not sure what you mean could you clarify please. Are you referring to the U.S.?--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying there is an inconsistency between US and U.S. in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This humungous quotation from the Code is totally inappropriate. If you really want the text, please footnote it. But frankly, it's such s... that it needs WP to bring it down to earth by simple paraphrasing: "As stated in the US Code the Commandant shall preside over the Headquarters, Marine Corps, transmit the plans and recommendations of the Headquarters, Marine Corps, to the Secretary and advise the Secretary with regard to such plans and recommendations, after approval of the plans or recommendations of the Headquarters, Marine Corps, by the Secretary, act as the agent of the Secretary in carrying them into effect, exercise supervision, consistent with the authority assigned to commanders of unified or specified combatant commands under chapter 6 of this title, over such of the members and organizations of the Marine Corps and the Navy as the Secretary determines, perform the duties prescribed for him by section 171 of this title and other provisions of law and perform such other military duties, not otherwise assigned by law, as are assigned to him by the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of the Navy." Can you remove the legal stuff the readers don't need to know ... simplify, get rid of the repetitions, the clunky language, remove 3/4?
 * "As of 2008, thirty-four [5] men have been appointed as"—what, some were appointed but didn't take up the position? (It does happen.) "served as".
 * Done.--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "also sometimes"—remove the redundant word. Can you run through these exercises some time?
 * Fixed this.--Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Love the fact you've got pics for each guy, nicely nested in the list. Tony   (talk)  13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I also do this for the Medal of Honor lists when enough images are available.--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.