Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients/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 not promoted 23:22, 18 May 2008.

List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients
I am nominating this list because I believe it meets the requirements for a featured list.--Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should it not be List of Medal of Honor recipients of the Korean War? Woody (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but if we are going to change the title I recommend List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients.--Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is how Category:Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by conflict is currently structured. It sounds better to me; List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients. Woody (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its done, I still need to redirect a few pages that were linking to it but its now List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients.--Kumioko (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ANY MORE COMMENTS?--Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I take silence as consent? I assume that the article is ok since there are no comments to the contrary.--Kumioko (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed at the low response rate for this list. So since knowone seems to have issues with this list, once I input the rest of the missing comments I am going to make this a featured list on Friday 17 May 2008.--Kumioko (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Promoting your own lists is discouraged. I agree that it's frustrating, but comments will come. I suggest asking Rambling Man or Dweller, they would probably be willing to take a look. -- Scorpion0422 04:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it is discouraged but its not against the rules as far as I know and I think that I have given plenty of time to review the article and it has been 2 weeks so far. If knowone chooses to say its bad then it must be good right?--Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Before it was just discouraged (I promoted my own a couple of times but only because I was the only one doing it) but now that we have directors it is against the rules. -- Scorpion0422 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (E/C) No it is completely forbidden. Only the directors can promote the article, just be patient. Having no comments means no-one has got round to commenting yet, there is no implied opinion that no comments==> great list. Woody (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Quickie review
 * It's nice that you included a brief history of the war, but is the korean text really necessary?
 * I thought so, it helps to give the reader an understanding of the conflict in which the medal was received. Also, as a measure of standardization I will do similar to each of the MOH lists.--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the lead doesn't properly summarize the topic. Most of it seems to be a history of the Korean War. You should include things like who was the first to win the medal, how many won it, how many posthumously won it, etc.
 * I made some changes here.--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence should include bolding. and it shouldn't be its own paragraph.
 * I think this is done also--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The text in the medal of honor section could use a citation.
 * For the notes section, either every entry needs a citation, or you should make it clear that every one is covered by a specific reference.
 * The date of action column in the table, does it refer to the day that the person was awarded the medal, or (I assume) the day that person did the thing they won the medal for? Should the day or year they were awarded the medal be included?
 * It refers to the day the medal was awarded. I don't think we should put both dates. One or the other or else it will be too much in the list.--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all for now. -- Scorpion0422 17:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So, a number of issues need to be addressed I think. Note, I edit conflicted with Scorpion's response. Woody (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Why is there a one-sentence paragraph in the Lead. Merge it.
 * This should be fixed now.--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "After failing to strengthen their cause in the free elections held in South Korea during May 1950[2] and the refusal of South Korea to hold new elections per North Korean demands, the communist North Korean Army moved south on June 25, 1950 to attempt to reunite the Korean peninsula, which had been formally divided since 1948." That sentence is far too long and unwieldy, split it.
 * Make sure all dates are linked per WP:MOSNUM. I see at least one that isn't consistently formatted.
 * Unspaced mdashes are greatly preferred by WP:DASH
 * I think the Medal of Honor section should be expanded. There isn't much information there and none of it is sourced.
 * It is bad prose to start a sentence with "Because of..."
 * Conversely, I don't think you need to mention the VC or the Legion d'Honneur.
 * This is done--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there no comment on the actions of "Woodrow W. Keeble"?
 * More to the point, why don't all of the recipients have notes on their actions?

Gary King ( talk ) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * Some references are missing a publisher.
 * Wikilink the publishers when possible.
 * Thanks for the comments, I will see what I can do to fix this. This will probably be the last one I submit for a while.  Its starting to disappoint me how long it takes and how difficult it is to cut through all the beauracracy. Plus every time I submit one the comments frequently contradict a prviously passed FL.  For example the Medal of Honor section is copy pasted from the Iwo Jima list that passed and now it needs citations and previously I was told that I needed to explain the conflict better and now thats an issue. Its just frustrating to me that I spend the time to get one up to a point where I think its good and then the comments change.  I know that I need to add comments to some still but when it takes 2 weeks to review a list for FL I figure I had the time.--Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misread my comments. I never said that explaining the conflict was bad, I just think you also need a proper lead that summarizes the topic, and I'm unsure about using Korean text. -- Scorpion0422 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's just one of the many facts of life around here in WP:FLC-land. I've had several lists on here for over a month, so it's not at all uncommon. There's no one single place to lay all the blame, though. Gary King ( talk ) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (E/C) You don't have to act on every comment; if you can provide a reasoned reply as to why it should stay like it is, it doesn't have to be changed. We are all simply offering our opinions. Personally, I find the conflict section balanced and don't think it should be changed. For the other FLC, the citations point must have just been missed by reviewers. Everything needs to be verifiable as you know. And yes, the waiting times round here seemed to have increased somewhat recently. Woody (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.