This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The CIB is possibly displayed in error as a awarded to the late SSG Bleak, as he was a Combat Medic and would have been awarded the Combat Medic's Badge. The Photograph illustrating the article Shows SSG Bleak wearing the Combat Medic's Badge on his uniform. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.134.107.237 (
talk) 01:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)reply
SSG Bleak should also have the Army Good Conduct Medal added to his awards display. The GCM is awarded to all enlisted Soldiers who complete three years of honorable service, or complete a shorter enlistment and are honorably discharged. His DD214 will have it annotated as a matter of routine. The photo of SSG Bleak on the entry appears to show the GCM after the Purple Heart. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
214.26.214.162 (
talk) 06:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Reviewer:Crisco 1492 (
talk·contribs) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I've had the pleasure of reviewing one of your GA noms yet, so here it goes. This particular article caught my fancy at DYK, and if I remember correctly shouldn't need much work.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)reply
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
See below
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
One image excluding medals and ribbons, of the subject so clearly relevant
7. Overall assessment.
Pending
Comments
1a
General
Any reason for the piped link to
People's Republic of China and not just China? (Note that "Republic of China", which you had earlier, indicates Taiwan... I doubt they were involved.
Just clarifying the nation, for anyone who didn't know. —
Ed!(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Interesting, as the only ones who would realise that are those reading the Wiki mark up (it's written [[People's Republic of China|Chinese]]
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I've had people in past reviews ask for the political entity, since the name "China" itself could be considered ambiguous. —
Ed!(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Nope. Links can appear in the lead and infobox without counting towards overlinking in the prose. I don't see any overlinks now. —
Ed!(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I tend to disagree, but not really a big deal.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
"... fortified Chinese positions. ... Chinese positions" - Any other wordings available?
Better. For FAC I'd suggest finding a way to avoid repeating Chinese, but no need for GA.
"...before assisting the wounded, and shielding another soldier from a grenade blast." - Chronology not quite clear; I'm assuming the shielding interrupted his work, but he continued to assist the wounded afterwards.
"The F Company diversionary attack may have been the action for which
CorporalClifton T. Speicher was himself awarded the Medal of Honor." -- Perhaps as a footnote using {{efn}}
"According to witness reports, Bleak rushed the trench and dove into it, tackling one Chinese soldier and, with only his hands, broke the soldier's neck, killing him. Bleak was then confronted by a second soldier, whom he reportedly grabbed by the neck, crushing his windpipe." -- Perhaps be consistent, as you indicate that the first soldier was definitely killed but the second one is not clarified. (Both are part of the 5-men kill count)
"... they were ambushed by another hidden Chinese trench..." -- I doubt the trench itself ambushed them. Perhaps "they were ambushed by Chinese soldiers hiding in another hidden trench"
Overlinking: Aside from those linked above,
fishing,
cremated
I don't see any additional links of these. —
Ed!(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I mean that they are fairly simple terms that we assume the average reader to know.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
"Starting in the mid-1970s, he moved..." - So did his move take several years, or...?
The info is sparse on exactly when he did which things, only that he held a variety of jobs for the remainder of his life. —
Ed!(talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Perhaps "sometime in the mid-1970s"? A move (if only one) would probably not take several years.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
"posthumous" as an adjective in this context needs to modify something, so "recognition" is necessary.
Sorry, I had forgotten to remove an A. If we write "for whom the decoration was not posthumous", then posthumous refers to decoration.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Alright, looks much better. A couple minor things though, which I've noted above.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
1b
Are #Military career and #Medal of Honor action worth merging?
The action section covered the event in-depth, in this case if they were merged, people would ask why the level of detail suddenly increases drastically. —
Ed!(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
2a
Why is the title of the Greenwood source in lowercase?
Just a suggestion for any future FA nom: backing up the WP and history museum sources would be nice, especially since the WP seems to redo their website every few years.
Yeah, Link Rot is my mortal enemy. Always looking for more book sources to back stuff up, if you know any ;) —
Ed!(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
6a
Infobox image needs a new source (tried clicking on it, dead link). Current description page does not have proof that the subject was an employee of the US military.
Which link do you mean? I don't see any dead links. —
Ed!(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
b. Simple synth, acceptable; no close paraphrasing
c. Passes verification and paraphrasing check
d. Passes verification and paraphrasing check
e. Passes verification, acceptable paraphrasing
f. Passes verification, acceptable paraphrasing
g. Passes verification and paraphrasing check
FN 9
a. Passes verification and paraphrasing check
b. Passes verification and paraphrasing check
AGF on offline sources
This is just a reminder that the article will be failed soon if no action is taken. As the main contributor has not been active for the past week, I'll give a three-day grace period.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 13:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)reply
OK, I think that's everything. Thanks for your patience. —
Ed!(talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Okay, that's good enough for me. The image was published by the army, although its creator is not indicated. Before going to FAC I'd look into that, but it's good enough for GA.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)reply