Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Marine Corps Brevet Medal/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 Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009.

Marine Corps Brevet Medal

 * Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and leave the first 2 comments as:
 * 1) My first imulse was to change this to List of Marine Corps Brevet Medal recipients but I thought I would submit it as is and see what the consensus is.
 * 2) There are some red links and I din't like them however there is limited info on some of these folks so rather than create several stubs I left them as is since the red link requirement was eliminated. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry I forgot about alt text I will fix that tonight and I also realized I should put in some verbiage about what a brevet promotion is so I will fix that as well. --Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok its done, I also added some additional references and info about brevet promotions.


 * Oppose, I'm not sure if the "red link requirement" specifically said that it was okay that 17 out of 23 links in the list are red. I would not think it makes it "Feature Quality" when most of the subject matter is not available to wikipedia readers. A collection of links is only really helpful if there is something behind the links. Now if the number of red links was significantly lower, 25%-40% at most I might have thought otherwise but 74%? redlinks I cannot support that in a Featured List. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Too many red links" is not a valid oppose rationale; there is nothing with them (see WP:RED), and they are not specifically related to this article. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very nice work on removing the redlinks :) I cannot oppose it any more, I will read again to see if I can see any other problems.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 05:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had always planned on creating the articles, your comments just made me do it sooner. --Kumioko (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose from
 * General
 * Dabs and external links check out fine.
 * Can the logos not have alt text?
 * Lead
 * The Marine Corps Brevet Medal was a military decoration of the United States Marine Corps which was created in 1921 per Marine Corps Order Number 26. --> The Marine Corps Brevet Medal was a military decoration of the United States Marine Corps, which was created in 1921 as a result of Marine Corps Order Number 26.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The decoration was a one time issuance and retroactively recognized living Marine Corps officers who had received a brevet rank[n 1] between the years 1861 to 1915. -- the to should be and
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the 19th century and early 20th centuries brevet promotions were extremely common in the United States armed forces. --> In the 19th and early 20th centuries, brevet promotions were extremely common in the United States armed forces.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * During the American Civil War almost all senior officers received some kind of brevet promotion, particularly during the final months of the war. -- 1)Comma after Civil War 2)the war should be a war
 * Did 1 but I don't understand 2. --Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Marine Corps Brevet Medal, also known as the “Brevet Medal”, was considered to be the equivalent of the Navy Cross, although in precedence it ranks just behind the Medal of Honor, since those receiving the award had received field commissions as Marine Corps officers, under combat conditions, and had performed feats of distinction and gallant service. -- try splitting this sentence, its too long
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Initially, the Brevet Medal ranked behind the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and was only issued to a total of twenty-three Marine Corps active, retired, and discharged personnel. -- do you mean Initially, the Brevet Medal ranked behind the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and was only issued to a total of twenty-three Marine Corps who were active, retired, or discharged personnel.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This decoration was justified on the grounds that until 1915 Marine Corps officers were not eligible for the Medal of Honor. --> This decoration was justified on the grounds that, until 1915, Marine Corps officers were not eligible for the Medal of Honor.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He died in 1952 in Coconut Grove, Florida and the medal was never again issued. -- comma before and
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept of brevet commissions was phased out of the United States military to be replaced by temporary and field commissions which were awarded much more frequently than brevet ranks. -- how about The concept of brevet commissions was phased out of the United States military, only to be replaced by temporary and field commissions which were awarded much more frequently than brevet ranks. ?
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A bronze cross pattée, with the center of each arm extended in a semi-circular shape; in the center of the front is the word BREVET, encircled by the words UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS. -- this doesn't really make too much sense, needs a bit of rewording
 * Recipients
 * Every entry in the Place of action column should be linked because the table is sortable
 * Footnotes
 * Why is this split up in 3 columns?
 * Not sure what you mean by 3 columns --Kumioko (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The footnote on my browser doesn't read in one long column, it is broken up into three parts in three columns like in a newspaper. Is this suppose to happen?-- T ru  c o   503 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for an update on this...-- T ru  c o   503 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why your seeing that. Could be something with your browser I am guessing. It looks like any other ref on all three of the computers I use and I checked it with netscape, IE and firefox and all 3 look basically the same fro me. --Kumioko (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * References
 * I see no need to have the HTML format listed, but if its a must, it needs to be done to every link that is HTML, not just a select few.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes angelfire a reliable source?
 * Not sure. I will see if I can find a better reference. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing was really referencing them so I moved them to an external links section. --Kumioko (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes geocities a reliable source?
 * Not sure. I will see if I can find a better reference. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing was really referencing them so I moved them to an external links section. --Kumioko (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything else checks out fine.-- T ru  c o   503 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Previous issues resolve/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o   503 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too many redlinks. The redlinks are fine for a regular Wikipedia article, but not for a featured one. Just because some "drunk who hangs around at FL" removed it from the criteria without getting a consensus doesn't change the fact that FLs should only have "minimal proportion of red links". --Crzycheetah 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I was hoping to find more info on them first but I will create some semi stubby articles for these fellows and fix all the above issues over the weekend. --Kumioko (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think redlinks is a valuable objection, redlinks are actually encouraged. Yes in a list it is advised to create the links, but what's the use of a bunch of stubs that may eventually just end up being deleted at AfD? -- T ru  c o   503 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Red links are encouraged because ~90% of the pages here are not finished. On the other hand, a featured list is a complete work of Wikipedia. By the time of a nomination, it should be clear whether the link is needed or not; thus, it should either be a blue link or no link at all.--Crzycheetah 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted above, "Too many redlinks" is not a valid objection. Please judge each article against WP:WIAFL. Thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do judge each article against the criteria! It's not my fault that the "too many red links" objection was blatantly removed from WP:WIAFL without any consensus.--Crzycheetah 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured articles don't have this requirement, although I can see why it might be different for FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If WIAFL once prohibited redlinks, then it was a direct contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines, and thus needed to be removed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been reinstated again after discussion, although I still don't agree with it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I created 2 of the articles and I will make some more tomorrow. I also submitted one of them, Percival Pope, for a DYK if anyone is interested. --Kumioko (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/01_usmcBVT/USMCbrevet.html reliable?
 * This is a pretty widely respected website when it comes to the Medal of Honor (and several others for that matter). So on this point I have to say that I think this is very reliable. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "widely respected" doesn't cut it at the FL level. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can think of 2 off the top of my head. The Congressional Medal of Honor society mentions them as a reference. Also, the military times (this is the media corp that puts out the Navy, Army, Marine Corps and Air Force times newspapers) posts a copy of the Home of Heroes database for awards on their site. This includes all MOH, recipients, Marine Corps brevet Medal, Navy Cross, and a whole bunch of others. Let me know if this still isn't good enough. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could provide links of this evidence, that would be great. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you go, Hall of Valor --Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that seems fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise http://www.foxfall.com/fmd-navy-bvt.htm?
 * Regarding the reliability of this one I cannot levy the same faith. I will work to determine a better ref.  I know have several books and magazine articles in my position that tells the same in as this website. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I have been having some pretty annoying internet issues (such as squirrels chewing through the cable line). So it may take a couple days to chisel through these. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was this replaced? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a ref, but I did leave it as an external link. --Kumioko (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: You do not have to have brackets around a single letter to signify change in capitalization, and definitely not for that many uses at once. Having so many brackets is distracting. Reywas92 Talk 22:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you would like me to remove them? --Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm fine with either all uppercase or all lowercase. Reywas92 Talk  01:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry it took me so long, gremlins where interupting my internet connection. --Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.