Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima

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 02:23, 17 March 2008.

---

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima

I believe that this list has what it takes to be a featured article. If its missing anything please leave a message on my talk page and I will be glad to fix/address it. Additionally, many of the articles within the list contain enough information to be B class articles or better.--Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Needed improvements:
  • The dates should be in US format. -Complete
  • The intro is way too short. -Complete I think but please let me know if it still needs more info.
    • Actually it has way too much. You need to start with what the list is, not the description of the battle. Then give a short description of the battle and why it was notable. We don't need the geography of the island whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I've done some trimming and rewriting myself. --Golbez (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the asterisks. -Note sure what you mean here.
    • Using asterisks in the name column to signify ones given posthumously. Perhaps that should go in the notes column? The asterisk seems out of place in the name column, I can see it maybe in the date column, but maybe actual text would be good too. --Golbez (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -I removed the asterisks and added a column for posthumous or nonposthumous recipient.
  • You need to sort by last name; there are templates to help you do that. -?It is sorted by last name.
    • The original sort is, yes. But resorting redoes it by first name. Look at some other lists of names to see how it can be done, I don't remember the name offhand. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all of the columns need to be sortable. -The in order to sort a wikitable its an all or none thing.
    • No, it doesn't. There's a way. Look through the other lists here. I don't know it off hand, I'll look for it later if you don't find it. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -Complete, good to know.
• I've done some work cleaning up the table. Now I have a new question - why don't all of them have entries in Notes? --Golbez (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure I have been adding that data as well. I will finish them by tomorrow. I also fixed some issues with each of the articles in the list.--Kumioko (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

* At the moment, this violates WP:NAME (specifically, "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles"). Something like List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima would be more suitable; it's not as though Iwo Jima really needs to be disambiguated with World War II. Kirill 13:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -Complete

• At the moment it's lead is too small -Complete and duplicative. and it lacks individual citations, and the "external links" section should be renamed "References". -Complete, I also expanded the references.

I would also like to see more text added, such as brief explanations about what each recipient did. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -Complete

Thanks, I will work on this as soon as I can. Should be in the next day or so.--Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of individial citations, do I need to add a citation for each individual recipient?--Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Bellhalla

• Oppose for now
  • Either link all OR delink all of the service branches in the table. With a sortable table, you shouldn't assume that the linked occurrence will remain first.
  •  Done
  • There seem to be some spelling errors in the notes.
  • The stats in the lead seem to be wrong. The article states that there were 2 Navy recipients, but in the table there are 4.
  •  Done
  • The overall Marine Corps stats need a citation. (Relisted below)
  • I think the lead needs some explanation of what the Medal of Honor itself is.
  •  Done
  • Other military award FLs (List of Knight's Cross recipients, List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients, for example) include the unit. If available, it should be included in this list.
  • Again looking at the above two FLs, posthumous awarding is noted by both a shaded color and an asterisk of the name field. I know that goes partly counter to the suggestion above, but I think doing that here would keep the list cleaner by not cluttering up the Notes column.
  •  Done
    • If that's the case with others, I yield. My main problem was the asterisk at the start of the name. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The other lists have the asterisk at the end of the name; I agree on not having one at the beginning of a name. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done
          • That certainly declutters the notes section, but I think I would have gone with highlighting and starring the name rather than the date. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the notes section some give a summary of the awarded action, while others give biographical and/or legacy information. My opinion would be to go with just a summary of the action. Presumably the individual articles will state what has been named after whom.
  • However the Notes section is addressed, either remove the periods (my preference) OR make the notes complete sentences.
• I think the list is closing in on FL territory, but it just needs that extra push to make it sparkle. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Support with the proviso that the number of USMC Medals of Honor in the lead is cited. Looks good. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The multiple dates need work. For example, Chambers has a 4-day range, but his description says the battle was 8 hours long. Likewise, Watson has a 2-day range, but the description says 15 minutes. Is it possible to pick a single date here? --Golbez (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - I classified this as done because I reviewed each of the dates with issues and the dates reflect exactly what is on the Medal of Honor citation.--Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, we need to find a solution to this, because we can't just have random unlinked dates, and we need to find a good way of handling the ranges. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I had delinked the date ranges per WP:MOSDATE which instructs not to use brackets around date ranges in the same month. As a personal preference, I like having dates linked/auto-formatted, but if you think it detracts having dates linked and date ranges not, I have no problem at all with having them all unlinked. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I certainly think they should be linked, so that we can have the autoformatting. However, this is a weird situation... --Golbez (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another Comment Each bit in the notes section should have a citation. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If this is required then I will do this but after reviewing several other Featured lists most of them that have notes section do not have citations and most of those that do only have it in the column header. If this is what is required for featured list status I will do that it though.--Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support It looks pretty good and is well-organized, though it seems a bit bland to me. Maybe an image or two placed tactfully could liven it up? Also, if you can find a bit more variety of references, it would be stronger. bahamut0013♠♣ 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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