Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Medal of Honor/archive1

Medal of Honor

8 articles

Humbert Roque Versace

Kenneth Walker

I just wanted to add some comments related to this topic

In general there are around 3000 articles related to the Medal of Honor but of those only 300 – 400 have a reasonable chance of making it to good article status or better.
I already know that at some point in the future this topic could/would need to be split into multiple topics (1 for Featured lists, 1 for Featured articles, 1 for good articles, etc). Write now though there just aren't enough good or featured articles out there to give them their own topic in my opinion.
There are several lists that are close to FL status including Philippine-American War, Vera Cruz, Vietnam, Jewish recipients and a couple of others.
There are several articles that I am working on getting upgraded to at least good articles including Charles Lindberg, Douglas MacArthur, James Stockdale, Theodore Roosevelt, Buffalo Bill about the last ten recipients from Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. There are also several others that have a lot of content already that just need to be refined. A list of the ones I have currently identified and am actively working on are at My Workshop.
There are other lists that could potentially be created such as recipents buried at arlington or other cemeteries with large numbers of Medal of Honor recipients, by battles similar to the Iwo Jima article (this is especially true of the Civil War), Foreign born recipients, etc. Not to say we need to do that but its a possibility.--Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, this topic clearly fails criterion 1.(d), "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." Including some conflicts and not others, or some recipients and not others, constitutes cherry picking. You can't just include the articles in the topic that are already up to scratch. I can see you protesting that it's impossible to get all the MoH articles to GA, but this isn't what you'd need to do; I suggest you look at WP:Overview topics. To give you some advice, I would expect a topic called "Medal of Honor" to include List of Medal of Honor recipients, possibly Medal of Honor Memorial (the only top level article I can find) and (as we only have 3 articles so far) the 14 conflict-based lists that can be found in List of Medal of Honor recipients. I suppose you could also include individuals involved in the establishment of the medal. Alternatively you could do a topic with List of Medal of Honor recipients as the main article and then those 14 other lists as the contents. And possibly the alumni and ethnic groups too. If you want to actually get down to the nitty gritty of including individuals, I think you need to include all the individuals who were awarded the medal in a particular conflict, or all the individuals listed in one of the articles - rst20xx (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well your right I didn't interpret it that way and I don't agree with it but, ok, so to make sure I am understanding this correctly, I could change this to Lists of Medal of Honor recipients. Take off the Articles themselves (Including the Medal of Honor article itself) and use this topic soley for recipient lists, (Korea, Iwo Jima, Military Academy and Naval academy alumni, and the 2 in FLC currently for Veracruz and the Philippine-American War once they are featured) is that correct? Also, after reviewing the criteria I have another problem and that is that I typically have between 2 and 5 Medal of Honor related articles in review at any given time (could be featured lists, good article or featured article) so unfortunately, it appears that it will be nearly impossible to have a featured topic relating to the Medal of Honor anytime in the near future based on the existing criteria.--Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not quite right, what I'm saying is that you'd have to get all the conflict lists up to featured status before you can nominate the "recipients" topic. Including some of them and not others constitutes cherrypicking. Yes, this probably means you won't get the topic featured for a fair while, but that's the nature of taking on such a big topic, and FT stars aren't meant to be easy things to get - rst20xx (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult is one thing unachievable is another. Not trying to be argumentative here but I still don't agree with the cherrypicking thing, just because a topic is good or featured doesn't mean it has to be all inclusive. It should mean that it contains the best articles of that topic. When we make a list featured we don't require that all articles within the list are good or featured and when we make an article good or featured we don't require all the articles that links to it to be good or featured and I see no difference here. Thanks for the info anyway its good to know. Sorry I wasted so much of your time with this submission.--Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that analogy is a bit flawed. Featured lists don't require that all of the articles linked to it are GA+, but they do require that you include all of the items in the list. If I had a "list of all the letters in the alphabet", and I didn't include m, q, and y because I couldn't find the sources to make them look as good as the other letters, it would get shot down at FLC. Similarly, if you had a topic here that was all the letters of the alphabet, we're going to ask you to include all of the letters' articles- and if you can't find the sources to get m, q, and y to GA+, well, then that's just not going to fly, no matter how hard or unfair it is. Good luck on getting the other medal of honor articles improved. --Pres N 14:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would do better to start working on the different break downs of those multiple FT/GT's that you mentioned above. To draw a comparison to my area of interest---Poker. I know that the WSOP will never be a FT, there simply isn't enough to make the earlier tournaments FA/GA's. Similarly, there is no way that I could get "WSOP Main Event Champions" as an FT because again, there isn't enough recorded on some of the earlier players. Now, if I was so inclined, I might be able to create a FT "WSOP Main Event Champions of the 1990s" or "Non-American WSOP Champions." But I couldn't create a topic "WSOP Main Event Champions" and only write 10 FA/GA articles and call it an FT. A Feature topic that jumped out at me when looking at your article, might be "Multiple Medal of Honor recipients" or even "Multiple Medal of Honor recipients of WWII".---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I wil resubmit as lists of Medal of Honor recipients once I get more lists to FL status.--Kumioko (talk)
Oppose - obvious cherrypicking per Rst20xx and PresN —Chris! _ct 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, but in no way is this a complete topic as required in criteria 1.(d), but is cherry picked, as Rst20xx demonstrates. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]