Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States Navy enlisted rates

United States Navy enlisted rate insignia

I have been working on this list for a while now and believe its is ready to go through the FLC process. — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This was only on peer review for two days and got just an automated comment. Why did you not let it run the course? What's the rush? I think it is worth going back to peer review again. Then ask someone independent to the article from WikiProject Military history to reassess the rating (currently "start"). I'm not sure how "useful" this is as a list. For example, the first table of twelve contains only three distinct wikilinks. Overall it looks to me like a mid-sized article with a handful of short embedded tables. The logos are very nicely drawn. I assume you are allowed to copy the design? Also, the first pic should be a JPG since it is a photo. Colin°^Talk 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  I would think it's more a list than a prose article. The basic structure is still governed by the ordered presentation of each insignia & level; the amount of prose is significant, for a list, but it's still essentially annotation to the tables, which are the main focus here. (If this were examined as a prose article, the tables would probably be excessive, and the prose not substantial enough.) Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It also had a WP:MILHIST Peer review here— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 02:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't find it there. Was it archived? Colin°^Talk 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I linked it wrong. I just corrected the link to go to the project page.— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 12:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the copy right question copyrighting rank insignias violates international law, so therefore this image belongs to public domain anyway on top of that I created the images so there shouldn't be an issue.

This is a list of rate insignia it does't pertain to one insignia so therefore it shouldn't be considered an article. Its displaying information about many different insignia.— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 02:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The general insignia copyright question is currently being debated; it doesn't actually matter in this case, however, since all U.S. insignia are public domain as works of the federal government. Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, seems to meet all the criteria. Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I've reconsidered my position. It is well referenced and presented. However, I do have some comments:
  • The E1-E3 table's wikilinks aren't useful IMO. The "Hospitalman Recruit"'s link is wrong. Linking different words to the same article is misleading and gives the impression that there is e.g. a Hospitalman article. Either create such articles, or else delink all but the first occurence.
  • The location of the "Coloration of petty officer rating badges" section, prior to the "E-4 to E-6" section (concerning petty officers) seems wrong. Could this be moved to become two paragraphs inside the latter section?
  • Could the list be renamed United States Navy enlisted rates to match the existing List of United States Navy ratings. From the history, this list started off as just a list of insignia, but it has changed to explain the different rates in detail. Therefore it is no longer just about insignia in the same way as the ratings list isn't about ratings insignia (though features them). Indeed the latter list links to this one as though it is an article about rates rather just a list of insignia.
  • Can you rephrase the 2nd paragraph to avoid the double parenthesis?

Colin°^Talk 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Response I appreciate you taking another look. I have removed the redundant links to seaman in the E-1 - E-3 Section, relinked Hospitalman sections to the Hospital Corpsman page, merged the coloration section into the E-4 - E-6 section, renamed the page, and removed the acronym of command masted chief so it no longer has double parenthesis.

• Support. Comment. Looks quite good, but the prose could be a little more crisp. For instance: It was not until 1841 that a rate badge was assigned which consisted of .... How about: In 1841 a rate badge was assigned, consisting of... Or with From 1885 to 1894, the Navy only recognized three classes of Petty Officers - the word "only" seems unnecessary. Do these sorts of edits sit well with the author? It would be good to have a reference for the origin of the term "petty officer" since many readers will assume the origin is something else. Minor issue: "fouled anchor" could use a short parenthetical explanation. Gimmetrow 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Response I have rewritten the sections that you mentioned and added a short description of what a fouled anchor is. Also there is a reference to the origin of Petty Officers cited and the end of the sentence in the first paragraph of the E-4 - E-6 section. I don't really understand what else I can do. Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done a copyed. Some of the changes were simply to provide variation in phrasing (depending upon -> according to) or to match style guides (spacing, combine short paragraphs). Near the end, the text deals with the CMC and MCPON as singular but at times uses plural pronouns. Tried to fix but may have missed some. Please verify the changes to those sections are still correct. Gimmetrow 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Some other minor points confusing me. This text says a CMC is the senior most enlisted person in a command, but the CMC article says second highest. That could be clarified. The link for Force MCPO redirects to the more general article on Master Chief Petty Officer. Not sure what the solution is, maybe a brief description of Force MCPO in the CMC article? Gimmetrow 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the CMC article I hadn't really read it. I corrected the error on the article page since in a command a CMC is the highest ranked NON-Commissioned officer. Plus I'll work on expanding the FLTCM/FORCM section of the Master Chief Petty Officer article.Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose at present - I think there is quite a lot of useful material in there at the moment but it's not well structured and is quite difficult reading for the uninitiated.

My first thought is the opening, ones rank or rate identifies where one fits in the chain of command, and ones pay is a consequence of that. I think the statement needs to be quite punchy. From there on in I'd then talk about the rates themselves and move the discussion about fabrics and colours further down the article. In each section I'd talk more directly about duties, responsibilities and authority, I feel as if the language is a little bit vague at the moment, hedging around and it feels as if there's a point, but I just can't put my finger on what it is.

Personally I'd disagree with your definition of Petty Officer in relation to Officers, I would infer from the current wording that POs would only work for senior officers, bearing in mind that most ships have a plethora of more junior officers (anything below Lt Cdr) then it's not clear who does the actual work.

I'm sorry that this is a bit negative, but there is certainly the core of a good article in there and I'm sure you can get some more distance from it.

ALR 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and don't be sorry, constructive criticism is what this is all about. I can see your point on the lead and and your feelings about the rates and colors being moved down. but as for a major expansion, this is a list not an article (per your statement "there is certainly the core of a good article") it's hefty now adding more may push it overboard since most lists have nothing more that a lead and the list itself, plus I believe that that elaborating on the duties of each rate should be left to that particular rates article. If you see above I have already ran into an issue as to it being to wordy to be a list. Now, for your your point on petty officers I can definitely reword the section to make it more clear and for that matter the entire list. Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, with that in mind I think you might make more use of existing articles and {{main article}} tag for pretty much every section and then try to migrate towards a summary style.

You might want to link to Bosuns Mate in the early paragraph where you mention that it's in all the examples.

I appreciate this probably expands your workload a chunk but you might want to consider the whole ranks system as a portfolio of articles and develop them to work well together as a suite. Rank structure; signs, symbols and badges are intimately related.

ALR 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely add the main articles easy, but isn't that what the links in the tables are for to take the viewer to the main article? I can tone down the descriptions and go to a more summary style no problem but I feel that is what I have already done. The reason I don't have much mention of the duties for each rate is because I feel that this is best explained on the subjects article page. I do however have the history, use, and description of the rate itself since this is a list of the rate and it seems appropriate to include such information here. As for the symbols, badges and signs these are called ratings and they already have there own Featured List, so adding the same information here would constitute content forking see:List of United States Navy ratings.Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)