Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War/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 Dabomb87 22:12, 19 March 2010.

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War

 * Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meet all the criteria for a featured list and is the next in the Medal of Honor recipient lists to meet this criteria. Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Why is South Vietnam linked over and over again, and a lot of the provinces and cities are not? Even when pages exist. Surely you can't just avoid redlinks by choosing not to link?  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll )  07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will look at adding more link for the provinces. Although having red links on a page isn't in itself bad, I also don't think we should create a sea of red links for provinces which may never have an article created. --Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Speaking strictly for myself, I would like to see an inline citation for each of the individuals in their respective notes tab within the table. If you can show me that this requirement is not necessary for a featured list I will rethink my position on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * again the notes in the column applies to all the individuals. Also for this one, this list is very large and adding text to each row isgoing to add a lot of extra bytes. --Kumioko (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I'll accept the length grounds on this one since its long, although this is an exception and not a rule. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * recipient is singular but themselves and their are plural.
 * Im a little confused at the problem here. This is worded correctly. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it? Again, recipient is singular by the rest of the sentence reads as plural. I think recipient should also be plural.—NMajdan •talk
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some images are still missing alt text.
 * Thanks I just noticed this earlier today myself. Not sure how I missed them other than there are just so many recipients. I should have that done in the next day or so. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done All images now have alt text. --Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some notes have periods, others do not.
 * This is because some notes are in full sentance form and others are too short to be a full sentance. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some, yes. But not all. For instance, Carlos J. Lozada and Andre C. Lucas have periods while Donald R. Long and Allen J. Lynch do not and yet they appear to be of very similar syntactical styles. At least, in my limited grammatical knowledge that appear the same.—NMajdan •talk
 * Done I went through all the comments and cleaned a bunch of them. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This note needs to be fixed and the second sentence needs a period. Needs a period since its the second sentence in the note.—NMajdan •talk
 * Done --Kumioko (talk)

—NMajdan •talk 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I am going out of town tomorrow and will be gone for a week so I wanted to provide my support for this article prior to leaving. My support is dependent on the above issues being resolved. I humbly ask the FL directors to verify that my requested changes have been made (unless other criticism of my review is raised) before counting my support.—NMajdan •talk 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the status on NMajdan's final comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done I just finished the last of them. --Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Truco
 * General
 * Dabs, external links check out fine.
 * Since User:Jwillbur had a fair amount of edits to the article, he should be contacted to inform him of this nomination.
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of images without alt text, as seen in the tool run in the toolbox.
 * Lead
 * The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, Vietnam Conflict, and in Vietnam as the American War, took place from 1959 to April 30, 1975. -- why not have the other names in parenthesis? To prevent disruption of sentence flow with all the commas and names.
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Theres no direct link to a wiki article as to what the exact US foreign policy was in Vietnam at the war's conclusion?
 * Thats an interesting point do you have any recommendations to an article to link too? --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * During the Vietnam War 246 Medals of Honor were received, 154 of them posthumously. -- comma after Vietnam War
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He also led a group to defeat an enemy force causing them to retreat and leave behind 54 of their dead and many weapons including grenades. -- This is a bit confusing, did the enemy lose the dead and weapons, or did his group?
 * Done I reworded it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thomas Bennett was a conscientious objector who received the medal for his actions as a medic[7] and three chaplains  received it including Vincent R. Capodanno who served with the Marine corps and was known as the Grunt padre. -- comma before including
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * List
 * I see a random |. and — above the table?
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen Doane's entry is not formatted correctly.-- T ru  c o   503 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: please check that the use of endashes is correct. I found a few that weren't, where endashes were used instead of hyphens. I've fixed a few, but it needs fresh eyes to find them. Endashes should be used for page and date ranges, as well as denoting interconnectedness. For adverbs, homophones, etc. hyphens should be used. (For example it should be hand-to-hand, not hand–to–hand; also it should be 42-man, not 42–man). Otherwise the list looks fine to me. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed a couple based on your comments...I think but you might want to double check to make sure I didn't accidentally change one I shoudln't have. The whole endash or hyphen thing is still a bit fuzzy to me. --Kumioko (talk)
 * They look fine to me. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.