Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps/archive1

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Sergeant Major is both a rank and a military billet, and he serves as " So the SMMC can only be male? You can fix this by eliminating "he", as the sentence still works through ellipsis.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is specifically anything that states that the Sergeant Major or the Commandant must be a male but in order to be the SgtMaj of the USMC or the Commandant you must have completed some things that would be extremely difficult for a woman to accomplish or because they are not allowed to do it(such as serve in certain billets in an infantry unit). Since these 2 billets are infnatry related its unlikely that a woman would be allowed althuogh I could see one becoming the SgtMaj so I will fix that since a woman can be SgtMaj.--Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just 50 years ago, the idea of an African American US president would have been unfathomable to most, but look where we are today. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate I didn't mean to imply that a woman couldn't do the job but since the billet requires a lot of time in an infantry unit it would be unlikely that a woman would be selected because they are prohibited by law (for know anyway) from being assigned the Specialties of Infantry, artillary or tanks. They could be assigned to an infantry unit doing support (supply, admin, truck driver, etc) but not in an infantry related billet. With that said there are A LOT of woman serving in infantry units doing other things and doing them well so I figure its only a matter of time before we see it happen. I made the change by the way. --Kumioko (talk)

Kumioko is correct here: both the Commandant and the SMMC traditionally come from the infantry field, which is currently not open to women. While I don't think there is a firm regulation about that, there are no indications that tradition will be broken any time soon. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "and by 1899 there were five Marines with the rank of Sergeant Major"-->by 1899 five Marines held the rank of Sergeant Major

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "rank device" Link?

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "SgtMaj" You never defined this abbreviation.

Done. I spelled it out. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A little more summary of the list is needed. Were there any especially notable SMMCs? Who is the most recent?

Only as far as stating that they where the first of something (i.e. the first sergeant major, the first one not to retire since..., the first non white sergeant major, a couple where awarded Navy Crosses) nothing that I think is pertinant to the article about the Sergeant Major of the USMC. Let me know though and I can put some of this in.--Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can flesh out some good details, but I'm not convinced I can get a remark for every single person. WOuld it be a problem to have a few blanks? bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No leading 0s in dates; i.e, "August 01, 1969"-->August 1, 1969 Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the list be called Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps?

I thought that also but was told it was fine, this also applies to the Commandant of the Marine Corps article that was recently promoted.--Kumioko (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Five paras in the lead seems a bit over the top.

It was a lot shorter but several reviewers asked for more and more info so it grew.--Kumioko (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the Marine Corps, Sergeant Major is the ninth and highest enlisted rank, just above First Sergeant, and equal in grade to Master Gunnery Sergeant, although the two have different responsibilities. Sergeant Major is both a rank and a military billet, " is a direct copy-and-paste from the Sergeant Major article. Discouraged per GFDL.
• "sometimes informally abbreviated as SMMC or SgtMajMC" prove it.

Done. I removed them because I couldn't find a reference althgough a couple of the references abbreviates them that way.--Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "One Marine is chosen by the Commandant of the Marine Corps to serve as his advisor, and serves as the pre-eminent enlisted Marine." is this the Sergean Major of the Marine Corps? It's not clear to me.
  • Not sure how so. This line is in the paragraph describing his role, and woult adding yet another "Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps" and sounding repetitive, I don't see how to confuse it with any other person/role/whatever. bahamut0013^words_deeds 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sergeant Major in the Marine Corps " in or of? There's still an element of confusion here for me. A very clear distinction needs to be provided between the "Sergeant Major of..." and a "Sergeant Major in..."

Done,I reworded this sentence a bit and clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pretty clear before because it did have an "in" instead of "of". bahamut0013^words_deeds 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "rank insignia of the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps" Rank.

done. --Kumioko (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "first Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps in 1957, there have been 16 Sergeants Major of the Marine Corp" repetitive.

I don't agree with this assessment, in the first part of the sentance we are saying that Wilbur Bestiwck was the first SgtMaj of the USMC and in the second half we are saynig there there have been 16. How is that repetitive? If it said of the 16 Sgt'sMaj he was the first and then it went on to say there have been 16 I would agree but in this case I don't. --Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the repetition of "Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps" is repeated and makes for boring prose. You could say something different like "16 men have filled this post" or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. bahamut0013^words_deeds 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the See also's supposed to be other service equivalents to this post? If so then it's probably worth mentioning them in the lead. If not, what are their specific relevances to this list?

They are the other service equivelants and I can mention them in the lead but as you pointed out its already quite large. --Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do have (in English) for most of the refs? This is English Wikipedia, the article is about an English-speaking subject. I would have thought it was safe to assume references were in English unless otherwise specified.
  • It's one of the fields to fill in refToolbar, and I generally try to complete as many citation fields as possible. bahamut0013^words_deeds 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's unnecessary and clutters the references up. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done I took them out. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Over categorised - check which of those categories are super-categories to others and opt for only the most specific.

Done. The last 2 categories had a subcat of Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps. --Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]