Talk:Medal of Honor/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have commenced review of this article. Retrolord (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading i have found numerous tags. Nomination put on hold until this is fixed. Retrolord (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added references where I could. Regarding how presented, with the medal presented to next of kin, I could not find any regulation that specifies that the medal must be presented in a wood and glass case with a brass label, so that was removed. From watching videos of recent posthumous presentation it appears to be the norm, but it does not appear to be codified someplace that my google-fu can find at the moment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know the sources of these two points:

   1890: On April 23, the Medal of Honor Legion is established in Washington, D.C.

   1915: On March 3, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers became eligible for the Medal of Honor.

Also, is the section regarding duplicate medals significant enough to be included? Retrolord (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Privileges and courtesies" section is entitled such but in the short introduction to the paragraph it only mentions the privileges, not the courtesies?

Also, i am not sure if the claim regarding "many" states awarding special license plates can be considered accurate since only six are referenced.

Retrolord (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This sentence does not make sense :

Since the beginning of World War II, 861 Medals of Honor have been awarded, 530 (62%) posthumously; 627 Medals of Honor have been awarded posthumously.

Clarify. Retrolord (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added multiple references for the two items requested above, and I have updated the numbers for the last issue as well as reworded for clarity.

As for the courtesies, the reason for why its not in the lead maybe because it isn't codified into law, and is matter of custom, which is fairly stated in the article.

As for the double recipients, it is highly notable. The level of action that the Medal of Honor is now awarded for is to the point where one must go so above and beyond the call of duty that more often than not the individual is killed in the action; therefore, to be a double recipient is even more notable.

As for states that have special MoH license plates there are:

• Delaware,
• Pennsylvania,
• New Jersey,
• Georgia,
• Connecticut,
• Massachusetts,
• Maryland,
• South Carolina,
• New Hampshire
• Virginia
• New York,
• North Carolina
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Kentucky,
• Tennessee,
• Ohio,
• Louisiana,
• Indiana,
• Alabama,
• Maine,
• Missouri,
• Arkansas,
• Michigan,
• Florida,
• Texas,
• Iowa,
• Wisconsin,
• California,
• Minnesota,
• Oregon,
• Kansas,
• West Virginia,
• Nevada,
• Nebraska
• Colorado,
• North Dakota
• South Dakota
• Montana
• Washington,
• Idaho,
• Wyoming
• Utah
• Oklahoma,
• New Mexico,
• Arizona,
• Alaska
• Hawaii

There are 40 states with Medal of Honor specific license plates, the other 10 have special license plates for veterans which MoH recipients maybe eligible for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that RightCowLeftCoast!

I am just wondering wether it is neccessary to describe the actions of each post-vietnam recipient and name them. Many others arent mentioned, isnt this inconsistant? Unless there is a reason. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically, the best place for their actions to be is listed in a sub-article as is done with previous conflicts. However, as such a sub-article has not yet been created, and as the article is only 93k and can arguably not yet be split per WP:LIMIT, there is no dire need at this point to create such a sub-article. However, when the size reaches 100k per WP:LIMIT, the split would be highly advisable. If you wish I can do the split now in advance of reaching 100k. At the same time it can be argued that having their names here could be a matter of WP:RECENTISM, and that the content in this article can be merged onto the content of the sub-article List of Medal of Honor recipients, and a sub-sub-article can be created as is the case with List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War and List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best for consistency if we created the sub article list. It would also makke the article flow better, but happy to hear what you think too. Retrolord (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have created the sub-sub-article. See the creation here, the modificat to the list sub-article page here, the modification of the main Medal of Honor page here, and the modification to the template here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the List of Medal of Honor recipients article was edited in March (after RightCowLeftCoast made his big edit) and the section on List of Medal of Honor recipients#Battle of Mogadishu 1993 was added back in. This seems wrong to me because either: 1: We should then also have a section each for The Iraq War and The War in Afghanistan like we did before RightCowLeftCoast's January edit OR 2: We should remove the Battle of Mogadishu 1993 section again since RightCowLeftCoast put it in List of post-Vietnam Medal of Honor recipients. I think we should come to a consensus before we re-delete the Mogadishu section or re-add the Iraq and Afghan wars. Cookiemonster70 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that RightCowLeftCoast. I've had yet another look over the article and am very satisfied with the content. There is consistency within the article, with terms such as United States (never USA or US) and the dates all seem to be in the same format. As far as i can see there are no unreferenced claims and there is no obvious plaigirism. The use of imperial measurements seems suitable as the article references a United States medal.

I can see no reason to fail this article, and as a result, I am passing it. Congratulations to all involved. Retrolord (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that a good article?

Dear retrolord,

does that mean the article is a good article?

Steve92341 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I passed the article and it says good article on both the talk page and the article, and im pretty sure i added to the list of articles. i think one of teh bots that does these things may have skipped over it somehow. I may have messed something up also. But the article did pass, so don't worry, just a technical mistake by someone(probably me). Retrolord (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)