Medal of Honor

Article is still a featured article

This article is quite well written, but the prose can be improved. In particular, a cursory reading of the first few paragraphs revealed the following problems with respect to Criterion 2a.

• "All branches of the U.S. military are eligible to receive the medal, though each branch has a special design." "Though" in wrong here, since it doesn't contradict the preceding clause.

• "The Congressional Space Medal of Honor is a separate award and not equivalent." Insert "is" before "not"; "equivalent" to what needs to be explicated for ease of reading.

• "Scott did not approve the medal; however, such a medal found support in the Navy." Either "approve of the medal" or "approve the proposal" is required here, whichever conveys the intended meaning.

• "In the rare cases (19 so far) where a service member has been awarded more than one Medal of Honor, regulations specify that an appropriate award device will be centered on the MOH ribbon and neck medal." The parenthetical phrase would be less intrusive if place after "Honor" (i.e., before the comma). Remove "will".

• Stubby, one-sentence paragraphs, including one in the lead and quite a few further down.

I note that Medal of Honor is displayed as the example of FA-class articles at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, next to the statement that these articles require "no further editing ... unless new published information has come to light."

The problems listed above suggest that the article needs a close copy-edit if it's to continue to be held up as a shining example of the pinnacle of Wikipedia's achievements. Tony 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to fix some of the specific problems you listed, but I'll still have the following content issues with the article:

• Not enough references. Unverified sections include Origin, Appearance, Versions of the medal, Flag, Evolution of criteria, and Similar decorations.
• Accounts of the meaning of the medal contradict each other. The quotation in the first paragraph leaves no clue as to its source, and the quotation in "Authority and privileges" is similar but different. The latter seems to quote the 1862 law, but it is inconsistent with the quotation at the end of "Origin".
• The introduction contradicts itself on the awarding body; does the President act on behalf of Congress or the people? What precisely does being commander-in-chief have to do with it?
• The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
• Data tables in "Recipients" should be moved to the subarticle and/or replaced with prose.

Melchoir 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Sandy 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It's been a week with no progress, so I'll move this to a major review. Melchoir 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Please note that this comment was made just before the minor/major review processes were merged. Tony 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Work is being done, though it is slow. Please give it time. — ERcheck ( talk) 01:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• I just fixed the refs. There may be a few stragglers. Rlevse 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• I've added several refs and others have been working on this too. Rlevse 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Could someone please list remaining concerns as of this time. Thanks. Rlevse 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sure! The following elements need either citations or revision to meet 2(a), 2(c), and 3(a). Feel free to interleave your own indented notes, but please wait for me to strike out items on my own. (fm Rlevse, those would be well-written, accurate, and lead section)

• All of the quotations:
  • "for conspicuous gallantry ... enemy force" (1p intro, infobox)
    • This quotation still needs help. It's currectly cited to [1], which doesn't have the same wording. Perhaps some brackets and ellipses are in order...? Melchoir 22:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • made quote exact Rlevse 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "any singularly meritorious action" (1p Origin) Not found at website cited at the end of the paragraph.
  • "to be bestowed ... the present war" (3p Origin)
  • "to such noncommissioned ... present insurrection (3p Origin)
  • "The President may award ... call of duty." (1p Authority and privileges) This needs a citation including a date, since the U.S. Code may be amended. Or if this is the 1862 language, it needs to be identified as such; it isn't clear, especially upon comparing with the rest of the article.
    • found and added refs for all these, plus found one you missed-;) Rlevse
• Specific facts:
  • "awarded by the President on behalf of the Congress ... presented by the President of the United States, who acts as commander-in-chief on behalf of the American people." (1p-2p intro) This doesn't add up, and it's glaring. Does the President really change hats between "awarding" and "presenting"? Is he specifically acting "as commander-in-chief", and does that theoretically mean something?
    • It's better now but still not perfect. For example, do we really mean to say that the President signs the medal? And I still wonder if "as commander-in-chief" has some content or if it's fluff. Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The President IS the commander-in-chief of the US military, yes, that means he is in charge of them. Neither the Sec. of Defense, nor the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the top dog. I reworded it too. Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I don't question that the President is the commander-in-chief, but for all I know some constitutional expert at the White House has written an authoritative report stating that while the President exercises his commander-in-chief powers by approving a medal, during an awarding ceremony he is actually functioning as head of state. In fact, are you sure that isn't the case? Melchoir 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one. Rlevse 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Well, it is the fifth sentence of a Featured Article. I'll just remove the detail. It's not discussed in the body anyway. Melchoir 02:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "The Medal of Honor is one of only two U.S. military decorations that are presented as neck orders." (3p intro)
    • Wording is better but I'd still like some verification. How do we know that MoH and LoM are really the only two neck orders? Perhaps they're simply the only two that Wikipedia knows about? Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • reworded so we don't have this problem. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "This decoration is considered America's first combat award (and the second oldest, after the Fidelity Medallion)" (1p Origin) In what organization's consideration is there a distinction between first and oldest?
  • "Scott did not approve the proposal, but such a medal found support in the Navy." (3p Origin) Who in the Navy supported the medal?
    • It's a bit of a stretch to point to Secretary Gideon Welles; [2] only has him requesting the Philadelphia Mint to work on the design.
      • If he didn't approve it, he wouldn't have asked the mint to work on it and as the Sec Nav, he'd have to approve any new medal. You're splitting hairs here. Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The paragraph states that Lincoln signed a "Public Resolution"; I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound like it comes from the Secretary of the Navy. The current wording, in its context, suggests that Welles was given the same opportunity as Scott to reject the medal. Was he really, if Lincoln was ordering him around? Melchoir 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Things get approved at every step of chain. Rlevse 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • You don't mean it was some enlisted sailor's idea? Now, I don't know who proposed what to whom, and I don't know how Lincoln's cabinet operated. How's this instead? Melchoir 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "The Air Force Medal of Honor is unchanged in appearance since its inception in 1965." (2p Appearance)
    • Uh, where in [3] does it say this?
      • It simply hasn't and it's implied by that you can not find any mention of change anywhere. In the US military, this is well known. If it's a problem, remove it if you like. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Okay, I removed it. [4] Melchoir 00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "It is considered a conjectural decoration by the Institute of Heraldry." (3p Appearance)
    • Sorry, but [5] is an old Wikipedia mirror! [6] Melchoir 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • OK, removed it. Rlevse 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "On special occasions, the medal can be worn on civilian attire." (5p Appearance) Is this unusual for a medal? Who decided it?
    • (A) It's not only unusual, it's the only exception (lapel pins are provided for civilian attire for lesser decorations) (B) Nobody "decided it". It's part of previously cited Army regs. footnote added.--Buckboard 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That would be an excellent addition to the article, but are you sure it's true? Army §578.4 only says the rosette is for wear on civilian clothing. The claim "Medal of Honor recipients also wear the Medal itself around the neck of civilian attire for special occasions" is, as far as I know, an invention of the website [7] that was blindly copied by [8]. Melchoir 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I erred and footnoted the wrong regulation. AR 670-1 is the governing regulation. I added the proper footnote (it's in pdf) with the exact page number and also discovered something else--the Army allows retired soldiers to wear any of their medals with "appropriate" civilian clothing! 578.4 and AR 670-1 forbid only active duty personnel from wearing their medals except on the uniform--otherwise they must wear the rosette or pin. I changed the text to read "former military members".--Buckboard 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, that clears things up! I'll merge the information into the relevant item under "Privileges". Melchoir 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "Many stayed four days extra, and then were discharged." (2p Evolution of criteria)
  • For that matter, every example in "Evolution of criteria" needs a citation.
  • "Since the beginning of World War II, the medal has been awarded for extreme bravery beyond the call of duty, where a service member consistently and persistently put his comrades' safety foremost, to the utter disregard of his own life, while engaged in action against an enemy." (6p Evolution of criteria) Is this a quotation? Where is it from?
    • I don't see it in [9]. Melchoir 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • changed ref. Rlevse 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It isn't in [10] either. (I've since moved that ref to the following sentence.) Melchoir 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I've simply removed the wording that can't be found elsewhere, so I don't have a problem with it now. Melchoir 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "Due to these criteria, the medal is often, although not always, awarded posthumously." (6p Evolution of criteria) How often is "often"?
    • Now it seems to imply that McGonagle is the only recipient to survive the medal.
      • reworded. Rlevse 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I looked at older versions of the article, and this seems to be the intent of the passage. I think it's fine now. Melchoir 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "Various times after the Vietnam War, past heroism was recognized and previous awards have been upgraded to the Medal of Honor." (7p Evolution of criteria) How many times is "various"?
  • "A 1992 study commissioned by the Army described systematic racial discrimination in the criteria for awarding medals during World War II." (1p Controversies) Does this study have a name?
    • The reference [11] is extremely troubling. See below in a few minutes... Melchoir 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • REMOVED ALL REFS USING THAT SITE, used official army cite that discusses the racial issues. Rlevse 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Same for "A similar study of Asian Americans in 1998".
  • "The American Indian Movement has asked that the 20 medals awarded at the Wounded Knee massacre be rescinded." (2p Controversies)
  • The section "Authority and privileges" still has no citations. (added, see USC template links too, RLEVSE)
  • "The Medal of Honor is the only service decoration that cannot be privately bought, traded, or sold." (1p Legal protection)
  • "When the patent expired, the Federal government enacted a law making it illegal to produce, wear, or distribute the Medal of Honor without proper authority." (2p Legal protection) What law?
    • I guess this can now be inferred from context, but it ought to be explicit.
  • "In 2003 Edward and Gisela Fedora were charged with violating 18USC704(b) - Unlawful Sale of a Medal of Honor. They sold medals..." (3p Legal protection) Does that mean they were convicted...?
  • "However, legislation has been proposed to sanction those who falsely represent themselves as Medal of Honor recipients." (1p Impostors) Proposed when, and by whom?
  • The statistics in the first paragraph of "Recipients".
  • The second paragraph of "Recipients".
  • "While current regulations explicitly state that recipients must be serving in the U.S. Armed Forces at the time of performing a valorous act that warrants the award of the Medal of Honor, exceptions have been made." (3p Recipients) Were these medals awarded before current regulations? If so, how are they exceptions?
  • "The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor is also typically considered the police equivalent to the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?
    • Reference added. — ERcheck ( talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • A connection to the MoH is not asserted at [12]. Melchoir 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • This one was reworded too. Rlevse 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Ah, so it was. The President bit isn't found until the subpage [13], but it's close enough for me. Melchoir 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "The highest civilian honor of all is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, considered to be a direct civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?
    • Reference added. — ERcheck ( talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • A connection to the MoH is not asserted at [14] or at [15]. Melchoir 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • reworded to show all awarded by President. Rlevse 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "The following obsolete military decorations were equivalent to the Medal of Honor" (Similar decorations) Equivalent? Surely not in their awarding criteria? If their only similarity is that they're all top-level military awards, doesn't this information belong at List of highest military awards and not at the American article?
    • No problem now, but I wonder, would anyone else like a list article? Melchoir 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Worked every specific facts. Rlevse
• Editorial problems:
  • The lead section contains stub paragraphs.
  • The lead section does not summarize the article.
  • The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
  • Most of "Versions of the medal" is a duplicate of previous material in "Appearance".
  • Why is the second paragraph of "Versions of the medal" in the past tense?
  • The "Flag" section reads like a newspaper article. It's out of order, it consists of stub paragraphs, and it repeats itself.
  • "Awarding the medal" starts with three disconnected stub paragraphs.
  • "Nomenclature" is just one short paragraph long -- too short for a subsection -- and it is misplaced. It needs to be worked into the prose elsewhere or else just deleted for being redundant.
  • Most of "Evolution of criteria" is passive voice.
  • "Legal protection" consists of stub paragraphs.
  • The "By conflict" table in "Recipients" creates too much white space for being in the body of the article.
    • addressed all in "Editorial problems". Rlevse

Eh, that's enough. Melchoir 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• • I've acted on each of Melchoir's inputs in some way. Rlevse 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Well, here's something disturbing. http://www.medalofhonor.com/Summary.htm is such a good source for those hard-to-verify details because it's a copy of this version of our article! Note the minor edits not too long before and after that version and the provenance of the images, such as Image:KY Medal of Honor.jpg, for proof that they copied us and not the other way around. So, the good news is we're not committing a copyright violation. That bad news is that at least the page [16] is an unreliable source, and you've got to wonder about the entire website. Thoughts? Melchoir 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I found Army Center for Military History refs for the racial citations, they're better info anyway. I also removed the question web site refs (GOOD CATCH!), using governemtn sites for that, again better anyway. Rlevse 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Great! If you're looking for more reliable sources, I wonder if you'd be willing to replace http://neptune.spaceports.com/~kjb/medal.htm and http://www.homeofheroes.com/? Melchoir 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Even better, I replaced it with 3 refs, two of them government ones. Are there any issues left, anyone? If so, place them below here so they're easier to find. I'm okay with all changes at this point. Rlevse 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Actually, one more reference issue that I neglected to mention before: http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1065.htm is currently our only source for the statement that the MoH is the only unbuyable medal. Any document that makes its point through varying combinations of center alignment, multiple fonts in various sizes and colors, SHOUTING, underlines, and italics... well, I find it hard to take seriously. Melchoir 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • • • • Actually, if you click on the US Code link ((18 U.S.C. § 704)(b) - click on the "704"), it shows you the actual law from a Cornell University web site. The U.S. Code templates all link there , so I consider them valid references from a highly regarded university. If you prefer, convert the USC templates to cite php, but I prefer the USC templates. Rlevse 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • So, our reasoning is that the MoH is the only protected decoration because if there were another, it would be listed in §704? (I'd buy that, but I'd want to change the wording a bit.) Melchoir 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Feel free to change. The MOH has special protections, yes. Note that 704a says "any decoration", but that section b specifically addresses the MOH. Rlevse 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Right, done. Melchoir 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I still intend to have a hard look at the lead section and copyedit the article one last time. Meanwhile, I wonder if anyone is interested in the following low-priority avenues for improvement:

• Is it possible to tighten up the "Statistics" section of the infobox, vertically speaking?
  • not without changing the template, which would affect other articles. Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Is it possible to place the two tables in "Recipients" side-by-side?
  • done Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• For all the cite templates, it would be nice to determine if any of the empty fields can be filled out, and to delete those that can't. The latter would make the source code more readable.
• Apart from the new material in the lead section, there are still four paragraphs without inline citations: Origin 2 and Appearance 3, 4, 5. I'm pretty sure they're covered by existing references, so could someone tack on the appropriate ref tags on the ends?
  • • added refs Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• What's the rectangular thing in commons:Image:MedalofHonor-3.jpg? Would that image be appropriate to left-float in "Legal protection"? Melchoir 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That is the case that holds the medal, it's not a book or anything like that. While a nice picture, I would not add it into the legal section. Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm certainly not going to cry FARC over any of those, but as long as we're here... Melchoir 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I have two comments about the lead section. First, the Coast Guard MOH is not the same as the Navy's. My understanding is that the Coast Guard has authority to award their own medal, although they have never done so. Second, the wording Since it was first awarded during the American Civil War, the medal has been presented 3,461 times is misleading. It was awarded another 700+ times, but then later rescinded. Otherwise, this seems like great work. Ydorb 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The approval for the CG MOH didn't come until 1963 or so. The CG sailor who has the MOH, Munro, got it during WWII, so he was given the Navy version of it. Reworded the CG intro and the rescinded ones are discussed later in text. Rlevse 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Status? A lot of work has been done to this article. Where does the copy edit stand? A quick look at a random section in the middle of the article reveals: "President Abraham Lincoln signed Public Resolution 82 into law by on December 21, 1861, containing a provision for a Navy medal of valor." Sandy 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Correct That statement is correct, PR 82 called it a Medal of Valor. I've clarified the confusion now in the article text. I'd like someone to state a valid reason this should not continue to be a FA or close this FAR out as I certainly think it is now still FA status. Rlevse 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I've been dragging my feet on copyediting the article. The article is definitely a FA. I'm ambivalent over closing the FAR. Melchoir 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If it's definitely FA, why not close the FAR? That does not make sense. Who decides to close a FAR anyway? Rlevse 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

For example, a quick check shows that the statement into law by on is still there: when will a thorough copy edit be completed? I'll be glad to have a second look: please let us know. Sandy 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't see the other instance of that, so I've now reworded it. I also went through the whole article and tweaked some more copy. If you have more concerns, please be specific as I'm not a mind reader. Rlevse 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• I've started going through the references for bibliographic details, and #3 turns out not to be the Army after all. It's actually Army.com, which says at the bottom "This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country." The article itself doesn't include an author or a dateline, which you'd expect from a news source. And, for that matter, it doesn't contain the quote "in the name of Congress", for which it is cited in the opening sentence. So, can we get a replacement? Melchoir 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• I've copy-edited the article and left a few inline queries. Once these have been addressed, I'm fine with closing the review. Tony 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Tony left 3 questions, and in IMHO two are for whomever decides to close this to decide which of two wording choices he offers (like "have been" or "were"). The other, which appears first, is about Munro, the lone Coast Guardsman again. Munro was in the CG in WWII and got the Navy version of the medal as the CG version hadn't been conceived yet. The text clearly states this. In the "by service" chart he's listed as CG, just as Marines are listed as Marines, who also get the Navy version. Rlevse 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm also fine with closing this review: nice work! Sandy 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cool, that's 4 votes that all the work by several of us results in a keep, with no objections. I'll close it now. Rlevse 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply