Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Medal of Honor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Medal of Honor

This is a comprehensive article about the US military's Medal of Honor. I have contributed to it, but so have many others. It is a partial self-nom. It went through peer-review a month or so ago. Ydorb 21:39, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Support Extensive research and lists have made the article very informative and it is a popular topic, given the prestige of the U.S. Medal of Honor Husnock 22Nov04
• Object. 1) Insufficient lead section, should be a summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section. 2) The first section is confusing, I don't know what the name of this medal is, or what is should be. 3) The "Marine Corps and Coast Guard" stands out a bit, and might be merged with Evolution of awarding criteria. 4) It seems better to combine the two sections regarding the official statutes, viz. "Privileges to awardees" and "Authority". This would also make the latter section a bit larger. 5) The links in the statistics "By conflict" should link to the actual conflict, rather than country. Perhaps a table would be nice to present this information, but it is OK as it is now. 6) The list of recipients seems rather random, and some soldier do not even have a reason listed. I would suggest to spin off the list to a "Recipients of the Medal of Honor" article (which probably should eventually list all of them). Extremly remarkable recipients (such as the only woman) should be mentioned in the "Statistics" section. 7) The quotation should probably be moved to WikiQuote. 8) The WP:MOS suggests a different style for web references; please consider using it. In addition, a book reference would be nice, or a further reading if no book reference was used. 9) The image of the medals says the medals are in the public domain, but this is conterindicated by the article (if I understand it correctly), so perhaps the image usage note should be adapted. Jeronimo 22:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All these points have been addressed in the article in response to your useful comments. Ydorb 20:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Support. Jeronimo 13:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support, none of my other objections are critical. Object. The lead section needs expansion. If it mentions the most recent awards in detail, it probably should also mention when the first awards were made. The sentence in Congressional Medal of Honor starting "Most recently, Congress passed legislation mandating the award..." lacks any sort of context. Are these meant to be more recent awards than the "most recent" 1993 awards? While mentioning the unknown soldier awards, it might be worth mentioning the reciprocal award of the Victoria Cross to the American unknown soldier. I would prefer the statistics to be presented in a table (but that's just me) and call me sexist but the "by sex" list seems a bit redundant, given that the only female recipient is mentioned straight afterwards. I don't mind including a list of remarkable/famous recipients in the article but I think the current list could be ruthlessly pruned. I don't know why the computer game is included in the See also section. Geoff/Gsl 00:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There should be at least some disambiguation for the computer game which is found at Medal of Honor (computer game)--Enceladus 02:19, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • When I made the comment there was disambiguation text at the top of the article, which is sensible and I have no problem with. But I can't see why someone interested in the Medal of Honor medal should "also see" the Medal of Honor computer game. Geoff/Gsl 05:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No information about Medal of Honor impostors (see [1] [2]) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: that is just too arcane a sidesubject to have. This is an article on the "medal of honor" itself. Some comments on those actually awarded it are appropriate, but no need to devote any time to those who have not been awarded it. jguk 23:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If you feel it's too arcane to be included in the article, then at least they should be a companion article with a summary and wikilink at the main one. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I left dicussion info about MOH Imposters. There is information in the article about federal crimes regarding MOH imposters and the penalities for wearing it. Putting up a list of MOH imposters, however, has some problems with the idea. See Talk:Medal of Honor for more info -Husnock 26 Nov 04
• Support GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support--Evil Monkey 22:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)