|
Oppose I still have a few issues, some carried over from the last review.
*You need alt text for the MoH image.
- Done — jwillbur 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I take issue with the inconsistencies in linking the location column. I still don't understand why some of the places are linked and others not? If they are redlinks, then so be it. If they are dabpages you are going to have to do some research to find out which one it is. Note, it is not WP:OR as the locations are already well-documented.
- Done. I linked everything, disambiguated ones that needed it, and turned a few red links to blue by fixing spelling errors and creating redirects. For the "Bois-de-..." locations (Forest of...) I just linked the city name, so Bois-de-Bantheville links to Bantheville. — jwillbur 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the "nears" should sort according to the location and not as a group of nears.
- Done — jwillbur 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some good work on the individual citations but I still have to question the consistency. Why are some abridged concise versions and others extended quotations. What is the reasoning behind the splits, or is it arbitrary? Personally I much prefer the shorter versions without the emotive language such as "at the peril of his life." It seems more partisan that way.
- Done. I summarized all the quotations and stayed away from emotive language. — jwillbur 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the non-quotations are still far too verbose, Dozier and Morelock for example. Some of the quotations are too verbose, they need abridged versions.
- I combined the previous two statement because they were the same. I can shorten some of these but I really don't see what the problem is here. Whether they are a little long is not an issue I don't think as long as they are properly sited and in quotes. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is where we disagree. You didn't answer What is the reasoning behind the splits, or is it arbitrary? Why do they differ? In terms of consistency, it is a poor show. Some of these go over 8 to 9 lines on my widescreen (probably more on a traditional screen) and others are only 1 line. There should be consistency. Some of them go off on patriotic tangents and you could argue about NPOV. A simple description of their actions should suffice. Woody (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to agree with Woody on this. Although most appear fine, there are a few that are rather long. As noted, a simple and clear description is enough. As examples, you might like to have a quick look at List of Australian George Cross recipients. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. All are concise now. — jwillbur 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have capitalised the "ins" but not the "nears" or the "ons" Why? (Also note that there are some nears that are capitalised which need to be made consistent, eg Hoffman)
- I agree, I think what I might do is remove the ins and nears and just add a note for the nears saying something to the effect of the action occured near but not necessarily in the location. I think that will allow the sort to work more appropriately and still be accurate. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't neccessarily have to remove them, might be best to make a mock-up in a sandbox and compare them. If you wanted to keep them in (which I would probably prefer, but that is entirely aesthetically based) then you could use
<span style="display:none">Paris</span>Near Paris, France That would sort by Paris but still look the same as now. Something to think about. Woody (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Kept the "ins" and "nears" and used {{sort}}. — jwillbur 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those who received the Army and Navy MoH, they received two medals for the same action? Is this still possible? If not, might be something to go into the lead.
- No this is not still possible the law was changed so that only one award can be received for an action. Again I don't think that we need this in the article, there are a lot of what ifs like this regarding the medal and I think they will just clutter up what the actual purpose of the article is. If the reader wants to know more about the medal itself then they can go the the Medal of Honor article. But thats just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your opinion but I disagree with it. I think this is exceptional enough so as to necessitate an explanation. As someone who is interested in this topic, I am surprised at this scenario. If you really object to it in the lead, you could expand on it in the footnote. It would also need a cite I think.
- Again, I would have to agree with Woddy. This is a rather unique thing, and readers would be interested to know a little more about it with out having to go searching through another article. It does not need to be much or too long, just a simple explaination. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a ref and added an explanaition of the double awards to the lead. — jwillbur 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, a few issues remain for me, some superficial, some a bit deeper. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
