The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 [1].

Kenneth R. Shadrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Kenneth R. Shadrick/archive1

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It's both a GA and a MILHIST A-class article. Short and sweet. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

• I'll need some help on this one. Just from the lead:
• "subsequent reports indicate he may not have actually been the first casualty of the war." and "subsequent reports indicated that he may not have actually been the first American killed": See WP:Checklist#repetition. Also: "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war" and "Higgins subsequently identified him as the first soldier killed in the war.", and "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "the identity ... remain unknown": singular subject, plural verb
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "since the identity of other soldiers killed before Shadrick remain unknown, he is still often cited as the first US soldier killed in the war.": Simpler would be to say that he's the first casualty who has been identified.
  • The problem is that they know the names of most of the ~130 who died at Osan, they just don't know who died there first, and who might have been captured and died later, etc. A slight difference. —Ed!^(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "as a result, received national attention after his death.": omit the "as a result" per WP:Checklist#because. Readers will be able to make the connection. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing. "Skin Fork" isn't a county in WV.
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Check throughout: WP:Checklist#second comma, WP:Checklist#because.
  • Sorry about that (I'm used to writing in AP Style at work) I think I've fixed any instances of that. Did I miss any? —Ed!^(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Throughout his childhood, Shadrick was described by his family as "an avid reader" who": Does the source really say that they kept describing him that way, or does it say that he was an avid reader throughout his childhood? If the latter, then move "throughout his childhood" to just before "who".
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Shadrick enrolled ...": In this paragraph, too many sentences start or almost start with "Shadrick". Do some fiddling with this please.
  • Converted some nouns to pronouns. —Ed!^(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Shadrick's father donated five dollars so Shadrick could buy one for himself": If he gave the money to Shadrick to buy it, "donate" doesn't work. (It's sometimes used in an ironic sense, but that wouldn't work here.)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "he reportedly dropped out of school": Sorry I don't follow ... did he drop out of school? - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked. —Ed!^(talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this has been here a while, I just finished another copyedit. Looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Magazine titles should be italicized
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why the different formatting on FN 9?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• FN 15: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. —Ed!^(talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review – No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches, but I would consider putting "an avid reader" in quotation marks as there is a 2% match with the source used.[2] Graham Colm (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ed!^(talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments for now.

• This sentence appears twice in the Lead, "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war".
  • Trimmed the redundancy. —Ed!^(talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*As do these clauses, "received national attention after his death" "subsequent reports indicate he may not have actually been the first".

• • Trimmed the redundancy. —Ed!^(talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How were these problems not spotted in the GA and a MILHIST A-class reviews? Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a compliment, since the A-class review predates me (barely). I'll be happy to finish the copyediting if someone will make a solid start on it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, I am happy to pay you compliments any time ;-) The rest of the article looks pretty-much OK, but another pair of eyes can do no harm. It think the image of the decorations is too large. Graham Colm (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I'm a big fan of your work. Good to hear the writing gets better, I'll give it another look. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments [by Giants2008]

• Early life: There are so many important links here that I doubt something as well-known as Japan needs a link.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't think "Post" should be capitalized in "Post-World War II occupation duties."
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Misidentification: The spaced em dash in the quote can be converted to something friendlier to the MoS. We are able to make basic stylistic changes like that in quotes.
  • Made it an endash. —Ed!^(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor point, but the Magazine in Time Magazine is italicized in the body of the article, but not in the first citation. I'd imagine that both should have the italics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the proper name of the magazine is just "TIME" so I standardized it that way. —Ed!^(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:ALLCAPS, which links to our style guideline on trademarks. I made the edit (Time). - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'll live with the present arrangement, although I'd prefer to see the italics myself. That's all the comments I can muster, so I'll support now. Writing, sourcing, etc. all seem up to par. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any thoughts on "In his early life, he enjoyed reading and hunting" in the lead, guys? I enjoy stuff like this in the text, but I'm just a little uncomfortable with it in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've since removed that. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• MOS:FLAG states "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." That doesn't seem to be the case in this article.
  • It's possible this (and other WP:NOICONS issues) aren't settled; we may want to discuss this at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, I'd be surprised if it didn't effect more articles than this. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a standard policy on this? I've seen this practice pretty commonly in infoboxes, especially in unit and person infoboxes. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I honestly don't know where WP:MILHIST stands on this (if it has a coherent stance). I don't edit much in the field of modern military biographies, but MOS seems fairly clear on this. Nev1 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Removed the image from the flag. —Ed!^(talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the lead would benefit from a couple more dates, ie: what year did Shadrick drop out of school in, and what year did the Korean War start.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure the fact Shadrick liked reading and occasionally went hunting belongs in the lead.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Higgins later reported that he was the first soldier killed in the war, a claim that was repeated in media across the country": across which country, the US or South Korea?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Shadrick was described by his family as "an avid reader" throughout his childhood, who had a variety of interests, including westerns and magazines": the assertion that Shadrick had a range of interests seems like a framing statement, so in my opinion would go better at the start of the sentence so it would become "Shadrick had a variety of interests, including westerns and magazines, and was described by his family as "an avid reader" throughout his childhood".
  • Well, westerns and magazines are the types of things he liked to read avidly. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "(American) football" looks odd. As this is an article on an American subject maybe you could ditch the qualifier "(American)", or at least the brackets as they're not really necessary.
  • That was mine; I'm fine with losing the parentheses. If we omit "American", a lot of readers will understand that to mean soccer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intention was pretty clear, but my thinking was that Americans will most likely make up most of this article's readership, and WP:ENGVAR may cover the matter. The simplest solution would be ditching the brackets as it would leave no ambiuity. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Shadrick's division was the closest to the Korean War": the Korean War is an event rather than a location, so this should be changed to a geographic point of reference.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering Shadrick's claim to fame is being misattributed as the first American soldier killed in the war and the lead mentions the Battle of Osan saw the first American battle fatalities, why is this not mentioned in the outbreak of war section? We're told that the 21st Infantry Regiment was routed, but not how many losses it suffered.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Shadrick's family heard of his death from a neighbor who had heard his name on a radio broadcast": this can be rephrased to avoid repetition of "heard".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Shadrick's body was returned to the United States, and on June 17, 1951, a funeral attended by hundreds of local residents was held in Beckley, West Virginia.[3] The funeral was set to coincide with the anniversary of the start of the war and Shadrick's death.": there's a repetition of "funeral", perhaps the second one could be replaced with "service"? Why was the funeral a year after Shadrick died? And if Shardick died on July 5, how was June 17 the anniversary of his death?
  • It was intended to coincide with the start of the war. The date wasn't exact, but from what I see, they weren't amining for the exact date, or there was some kind of logistical problem because the funeral was well planned for the 17th. —Ed!^(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed "and Shadrick's death". - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dank's change sorted things out. Nev1 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The awards and decorations section should be rearranged so that each description is next to each badge it relates to. The current arrangement of two separate tables is odd.
  • There has been no particular agreement on the placement/organization of decorations, but there has been a lot of discussion about it. I'd prefer to hold out for some kind of universal policy on decorations sections in articles. —Ed!^(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense. I wish I knew the answers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good little article, which seems to cover the subject as well as can be expected, but there are a few issues which could be sorted. Nev1 (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review, ignoring the icon issue raised above.

Removed the icon. —Ed!^(talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Kenneth_Shadrick.jpg: listed source doesn't provide photographer or further source info for this image, so how do we know it's PD-military?
  • Per the site's privacy policy, if it was property of anyone other than the government they would have to disclose it below the image. —Ed!^(talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• File:US_Army_E-2.svg: source link returns 404 error
  • Removed the image. —Ed!^(talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• File:United_Nations_Service_Medal_for_Korea_Ribbon.svg, File:Korean_War_Service_Medal_ribbon.png, File:Presidential_Unit_Citation_(Korea).svg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added sources. —Ed!^(talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the parts about his high school days, I think they do a good job of showing his personality a little. I made some edits and added a few links to things that needed them, but other than that I think the article meets the Featured Article criteria. Tango16 (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck fn 2, 3, 13, 18, 21, clear. 5/21 fn checked. From the manner of loose paraphrase, and generalised use of sources rather than over reliance on single sources in narrative, I do not expect further checking would uncover problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight issue, "Shadrick and the other bazooka operators began firing on the tank from long-range concealed positions at around 16:00." the time of action is not found in footnote [3]. Perhaps another source (TIME, cited for the para?) gives the specific time of action? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a specific ref for that detail. —Ed!^(talk) 01:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a reference error relating to the ref "Apple79". Ucucha (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. —Ed!^(talk) 17:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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