Jump to content

Talk:Jared C. Monti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJared C. Monti has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 31, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Jared C. Monti is only the second person to be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions during the War in Afghanistan?

Jared C. Monti on Flickr

[edit]

The US Army has published a ton of Jared C. Monti Photographs on it's Flickr Photostream:

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jared C. Monti/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    this is much better (you're getting the hang of the writing), although it could still use some work.
    In your LEAD the last two sentences are not mentioned in the article itself, so possibly you should just move them to the article, to the section about his award (I did this). I would also simplify the sentence where you say he was trying to rescue a man of his squad 3 times, just say he was trying to rescue, not the number of times. That gives your story later some additional ooomph. I would also not cite anything in the lead. It is not necessary because presumably you've mentioned it again, and cited it in the article.
    Prose I've cleaned up some of the problems in prose. If you look at what I've done, you'll see that I've simplified the sentences, especially in the verb structure, to make your article read more smoothly.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Again, I have trouble understanding why you have separated your citations and "general" the way you have. It makes no sense to me, and it is not a matter of not wanting to use the cite templates. Why aren't all your citations cited the same way? And if you are going to take this further, you must have a complete bibliography that lists not only the books you've used, or a few books that others might use, but everything you've cited. I will post on the talk page a format you can use, and it fits with the cite templates or if you do them individually.
    Done - I thinkI fixed this and added some content and references to clarify things a bit.--Kumioko (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have 13 cited sources, but only 10 listed in the bibliography.
    What makes Wicked local Raynham news a reliable source?
Done - I added the other refs to theh bibliography and Wicked local is the local news agency in Rayhnam were hes from. --Kumioko (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

clearing up the sourcing issues.

[edit]

Kumioko, I'm still bewildered by your sources section, particularly by the fact that you now have something called "specific" and "general". I have no idea what you mean by this.

==Sources==

===Notes and citations===

Everything that you have included in the <ref> </ref> or <ref name= > </ref> parameters in your article goes here. Some people choose to divide their citations from their notes, in which they use a special notation system to cluster things together. You know how to do this. In this case they would have a sub section called notes and a subsection called citations.

There is no division of material here among specific kinds of sources, for example, things that you quoted, things that you cited, things that you consulted. Material that is specifically about Monti and material that is generally about Afghanistan is equal.

You might want to call these by other names. As long as it is clear to your readers, and more or less in line with what is generally done on Wikipedia, then I don't have problems with that. Don't try to swim against the current. You won't get anywhere.

===Bibliography===

EVERYTHING that you have cited should be listed here again, especially if you plan to tak the article to ACR or FA (especially here!) The listing here goes in bibliographic format, not footnote or citation format (see MOS).

Anything else related to the subject but that you have not cited does NOT go here. If there is anything you have consulted that informed your general information about the piece, it must be cited (above), and included here. Some of your teachers might want you to include a list of books (or whatever) called sources consulted, separate from sources cited. WP doesn't want that. If you consulted it, you cite it. Other things that someone might read belongs in a section called

===Further reading===

Does this help? I promise you I'm not trying to be difficult. You squeaked by the ACR on the other because no one wanted to deal with it, but we should have. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Defense Service Medal

[edit]

Sgt Monti's ribbon rack should be updated to reflect two awards of the National Defense medal, not three. That would be the ribbon itself (for service in between August 2, 1990 and November 30, 1995) and a device/cluster denoting the second awarding (for service September 11, 2001 to a date to be announced). There are very few military members with three. Sgt Monti wasn't even born when it was the last award period concluded (1974). Thank you.

SFC Monti's ribbon rack needs to be cleaned up and properly done

[edit]

SFC Monti's ribbon rack still needs to be updated. Oakleaf clusters are not used with the Good Conduct Medal's ribbon or the NCO Professional Development Ribbon. The former uses clasps to indicate additional awards while the latter uses numerals to indicate the same. SFC Monti should have two claps on his Good Conduct Medal (not two clusters), his Overseas Service Ribbon should have number 3 on it (as opposed to nothing on it), his NCO professional development ribbon should have a numeral 2 on it (not a cluster), and SFC Monti was only awarded one NATO medal (the service star is not needed). His official autobiographical data is accessible to verify all this and information on appurtenances for awards can be found on page 278 of Army Regulation 670-1. If one were a little more anal about the details, oakleaf clusters are joined together when more than one is present--not separated. The effort is appreciated, but they should be displayed properly. Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrdonquixote (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jared C. Monti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jared C. Monti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_C._Monti&oldid=1207811813"