Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)/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 23:34, 13 June 2009.

List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)

 * Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it appears to meet all FL criteria, is a complete list and is well formatted. Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"This is a list of United States military personnel who received the Medal of Honor for their actions during the United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914." Featured lists don't start like this any more, see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Also, why is the date linked? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed the date link but I am not sure what you want me to do for the title. If you have some suggestions for a better title please let me know.--Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients—it's not a featured list but is still a good example. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See it for the title or the format?--Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't been clear: I've been referring to the first sentence of the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded the beginning a bit.--Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - title of the article is a bit long, just wonder if there is a way to shorten it.— Chris!  c t 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree and if you have any suggestions I am open.--Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about it and what if I say something like "List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz)".--Kumioko (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the title is fine personally, but if you want to shorten it, consider this:
 * Did the US occupy Veracruz more than once? If not, you can remove the year.
 * Has anyone other than the US occupied Veracruz? If not, you can remove United States.
 * Just some things to consider. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, not sure of anyone else occupied it but I think the US was only there once.--Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the United States occupied Veracruz in the Mexican-American War, and aside from the Spanish, the United States, and Mexico, the French occupied Veracruz in the French intervention in Mexico. Ottoman project Review me 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to know.--Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Captain is a disambiguation link; please fix it. There is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed captain and a couple other ranks, I also fixed a broken link in the references section and cleanup some dates. Not sure about the broken link in the toolbox. I clicked them all and they all seem to work for me.--Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments - a few points that stand out:
 * Both Veracruz and Vera Cruz are used in the article. Please choose one and use consistantly throughout.
 * Done, I chose Vera Cruz.--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you chose Vera Cruz, shouldn't the article be moved to List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Vera Cruz? Ottoman project Review me 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We can if everyone thinks thats best. Its ok with me either way.--Kumioko (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is "Vera Cruz" the article should be renamed List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Vera Cruz. Same with "Veracruz". Point. Blank. Period. Any other way, all uniformity is thrown out. Ottoman project Review me 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats cool with me, if thats what it takes to get this to featured status. It's a en second change, just tell me what the consensus is and I'll make the change.--Kumioko (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Endashes (–) should be used in the Date of action column rather than "to".
 * Done--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Were any of the awards posthumous? If so, this should be signified in the columns in a simular mannor to that in List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima.
 * No--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The two images in the "Medal of Honor" section do not go well with the section and create quite a bit of white space. I suggest they be moved or removed from the article.
 * I removed them.--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I'd go with "List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz)", MOH tells you it's a US thing, not someother country, and dates of actions will tell you when.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 11:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to changing the name of the Article I changed it to List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz). I also changed the link to the article from the List of Medal of Honor recipients article and the link in the Medal of Honor template.--Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose with comments
 * I prefer linking Vera Cruz first time, rather than the second time in the lead.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick search (and some comments above) reveal this Wikipedia actually calls the place Veracruz - not sure which is "more" correct but would prefer to see this list use whichever one is...
 * Done. I do not know either however I changed all to be a standard Vera Cruz.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The table is sortable so I would link all instances of things you have linked because there is no guarantee that the first instance will be the linked one.
 * Done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Link Josephus Daniels.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "In total 63 Medals of Honor were received for actions during the occupation; 1 Army, 9 to members..." reads strangely and perhaps needs to be fixed in your other lists - "received" and "to" here. Perhaps "received" and "by" or "presented" and "to".... do you see what I'm trying to poorly explain?!
 * Why is "(Medal presented...)" in parentheses? It is a note, after all.
 * Done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's linked but no explanation as to what USMC means.
 * Done, Changed to Marine Corps.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This came up before in another article also. I can chaneg this however WP states that common abbreviations are ok (although I cannot remember where) and I would argue that just about anyone anywhere in the world would know what USMC means.  I have been to countries where all they could say in english was American USMC or American Marines. If thats what it takes to pass it though I could change it to something like U.S. Marines. Would that be acceptable?--Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "April 22, 1914" under "Date of action" vs "22 April 1914" in notes. Occurs more than once - I'm not bothered on the format you choose, just be consistent.
 * Done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can change the date in the notes however most of the notes are the actual verbatim citation and I hesitate in changing it. Would it be more appropriate to put it in quotes?--Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "leading 3 picket launches" - three, and what is a picket launch?
 * Done. I reworded this.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "of the 22d and " 22d?
 * Not sure the repetition of Vera Cruz, Mexico is required on every single line. Perhaps the col is needed for the topic to remain consistent but maybe just lose the Mexico each time?
 * Done. I left it as Vera Cruz, Mexico but I linked all of them.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * " 21-22 April" - en dash required.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Moffett's entry contains "Vera Cruz" three times and "Mexico" twice - overkill?
 * "Vera Cruz 21 and 22 April 1914." no comma, "Vera Cruz, 21 and 22 April 1914." comma... consistency?
 * "Vera Cruz Mexico" comma?
 * "...of the USS Florida's landing..." shouldn't that Florida be in italics?
 * Done. I also italicized several other ship names as well.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Bio Citation" - can we make these references using cite web please?
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ril 1914." - odd carriage return in there, and same comment about italics on the ship... check others if need be.
 * "On board the USS Florida, for extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession during the seizure of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 21 Ap
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "One of five pairs of brothers to have both won the Medal of Honor." minor point but probably needs a specific reference.
 * The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also changed some other things such as reowrding some of the notes slightly, removing the periods from none full sentences in the comments and some other minor edits.--Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I started adding " align=left| " to the notes column, see my sample edit; please finish that up. Is this material copied directly from the MOH citation? If so, it needs to be in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed them although I still don't agree with centering all the data in the table. I think it looks ugly and is the reason we have to make this kind of change. I will check on the notes but I think most of them are reworded abbreviations of the citation. --Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can remove the centering if you want. I'm not going to force that on you :) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if we need to have it ok I just don't like it (it displays the data poorly on my monitor and makes it look messy) and it seems counter-construcive to center the table and then have to go back and align certain things to the left because of it. I am also concerned that the more additional formatting we include the less likely it is for non expereinced editors to make changes without breaking it.  The required formatting is confusing enough without adding more.  Not trying to be argumentative here its just a perception that I have.--Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Please remove it; I wouldn't want your display to be messed up because of a stylistic issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I removed the alignment formatting and I went through the notes and put anything that needed it in quotes.--Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with a comment: Overall, the list presents a comprehensive view of the topic at hand, while supplying an equally good description of those awarded the award down in the table. Regardless of my support, I believe you should add a very brief description of the Tampico Affair into the lead, instead of just a link to the article itself. Hello32020 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment if the Wikipedia article for this location is Veracruz, shouldn't the title here be fixed? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I also update the medal of honor recipients template--Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 7 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.