Does anybody have any advice on an NCOER bullet relating to Wikipedia?

If you can verify that the actions were actually adopted and had some valid measurable impact then I don't see it as any different then having an article published by a professional journal, or a suggestion adopted by the Army for maintenance, safety or TTPs which would be valid bullets due to the impact. Just going into Wikipedia and correcting grammar, punctuation, or trivial stuff wouldn't be the same impact or take the same effort. I'd dig deep into that one to:
- verify input
- determine effect
- quantify effort
A hokey bullet is worse then no bullet.
I'm not very familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, but I remember not being able to use them as primary sources cited in research for term papers because of a "relatively high degree" of inaccuracy.

I definitely would not use or accept that bullet comment because the board can easily say WTF is this? Sure one wants to stand out, but sometimes standing out is not a good thing. If I state that my leadership was the butterlfy whose wings eventually caused a hurricane, folks are going to say huh? You don't want those WTF moments.

Seems off. Sort of like saying he did a great job picking up trash in front of Walmart. Whats that got to do with anything?