Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I/archive3


 * 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 The Rambling Man 18:18, 12 September 2009.

List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I

 * Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk), Jwillbur

I am nominating this for featured list because I previously submitted it twice and it failed and after making a number of edits and major changes to the article I believe that I have (along with help from others) made all the necesary changes to get this article to featured status. Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment There's a large space in the second footnote. I would fix it, but I don't go near footnotes (I tried to put one in once, and I was up all night trying to put it in. Not fun.) Mm40 (talk)
 * I don;t see any space. --Kumioko (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I performed a quick copy-edit of the lead. The article is much improved from when it was previously at FLC. However, I want to see other users' opinions first before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments There are inconsistencies in the "Date of action " column
 * Did Holderman fight from 10/02 to 10/08 or Just 2 days 10/02 AND 10/08?
 * Done, He fought from 2 - 8 October. I rephrased his note also. --Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * McMurtry has a British style. Also, did he fight from 10/02 to 10/08 or Just 2 days 10/02 AND 10/08?
 * Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have for Parker "July 18, 1918 and July 19, 1918", but most of the recipients with successive dates have a hyphen in between those dates.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Robb has the same problem as Parker
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

-- Cheetah  (talk)  19:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I believe this is a featured list.-- Cheetah  (talk)  03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, see below for reasoning.

Oppose I still have a few issues, some carried over from the last review. *You need alt text for the MoH image.
 * Done — jwillbur 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I take issue with the inconsistencies in linking the location column. I still don't understand why some of the places are linked and others not? If they are redlinks, then so be it. If they are dabpages you are going to have to do some research to find out which one it is. Note, it is not WP:OR as the locations are already well-documented.
 * Done. I linked everything, disambiguated ones that needed it, and turned a few red links to blue by fixing spelling errors and creating redirects. For the "Bois-de-..." locations (Forest of...) I just linked the city name, so Bois-de-Bantheville links to Bantheville. — jwillbur 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think that the "nears" should sort according to the location and not as a group of nears.
 * Done — jwillbur 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been some good work on the individual citations but I still have to question the consistency. Why are some abridged concise versions and others extended quotations. What is the reasoning behind the splits, or is it arbitrary? Personally I much prefer the shorter versions without the emotive language such as "at the peril of his life." It seems more partisan that way.
 * Done. I summarized all the quotations and stayed away from emotive language. — jwillbur 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the non-quotations are still far too verbose, Dozier and Morelock for example. Some of the quotations are too verbose, they need abridged versions.
 * I combined the previous two statement because they were the same. I can shorten some of these but I really don't see what the problem is here. Whether they are a little long is not an issue I don't think as long as they are properly sited and in quotes. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is where we disagree. You didn't answer What is the reasoning behind the splits, or is it arbitrary? Why do they differ? In terms of consistency, it is a poor show. Some of these go over 8 to 9 lines on my widescreen (probably more on a traditional screen) and others are only 1 line. There should be consistency. Some of them go off on patriotic tangents and you could argue about NPOV. A simple description of their actions should suffice. Woody (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with Woody on this. Although most appear fine, there are a few that are rather long. As noted, a simple and clear description is enough. As examples, you might like to have a quick look at List of Australian George Cross recipients. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. All are concise now. — jwillbur 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have capitalised the "ins" but not the "nears" or the "ons" Why? (Also note that there are some nears that are capitalised which need to be made consistent, eg Hoffman)
 * I agree, I think what I might do is remove the ins and nears and just add a note for the nears saying something to the effect of the action occured near but not necessarily in the location. I think that will allow the sort to work more appropriately and still be accurate. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't neccessarily have to remove them, might be best to make a mock-up in a sandbox and compare them. If you wanted to keep them in (which I would probably prefer, but that is entirely aesthetically based) then you could use  That would sort by Paris but still look the same as now. Something to think about. Woody (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Kept the "ins" and "nears" and used sort. — jwillbur 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those who received the Army and Navy MoH, they received two medals for the same action? Is this still possible? If not, might be something to go into the lead.
 * No this is not still possible the law was changed so that only one award can be received for an action. Again I don't think that we need this in the article, there are a lot of what ifs like this regarding the medal and I think they will just clutter up what the actual purpose of the article is. If the reader wants to know more about the medal itself then they can go the the Medal of Honor article. But thats just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion but I disagree with it. I think this is exceptional enough so as to necessitate an explanation. As someone who is interested in this topic, I am surprised at this scenario. If you really object to it in the lead, you could expand on it in the footnote. It would also need a cite I think.
 * Again, I would have to agree with Woddy. This is a rather unique thing, and readers would be interested to know a little more about it with out having to go searching through another article. It does not need to be much or too long, just a simple explaination. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a ref and added an explanaition of the double awards to the lead. — jwillbur 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, a few issues remain for me, some superficial, some a bit deeper. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent work. I have struck the resolved issues with only the double recipients outstanding. That isn't a deal-breaker for me but I do think there should be some explanation on the page. By the way, I have removed the note about quotations as there aren't any quotations left. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added to the lead about the double recipients. — jwillbur 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I have no outstanding issues. Great work, Woody (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Kumioko has effectively retired. Per his comment here, this FLC can be closed or taken up by somebody else. Does anybody want to work on the issues raised? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to address the issues, might take me a few days. — jwillbur 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Support My issues were resolved in the previous FLCs, and I'm satisfied that the list meets FL criteria after Woody's and Crzycheetah's concerns were resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some inline book references use harvnb, while others don't. Make them consistent please. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. Is this what you meant? — jwillbur 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the one, thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.