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 wouldn't want Wikipedia to appear anywhere on my NCOER, nor would I recommend it for anyone else.
What rating do you believe that helps support? I would suggest this doesn't represent setting one's self apart.
It's true that there is a need to set oneself apart.
I'm confident that he first thought of many who read the post was WTF. Likely the same response at a board.
I did have a bullet comment for an SAMC page I created over a decade ago, but that had information that would help someone preparing for the board or seeking information on Audie Murphy.

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?