Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Victoria Cross

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 01:10, 7 July 2007.

Victoria Cross

edit

Self nomination. I have been rewriting and updating this article for a while. It has been through a peer review and has recently passed an A-Class review on the MilHist project. I now believe that it meets the criteria for FA. Thankyou Woodym555 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article which I would very much like to see as an FA. I've had it on my radar for a while, though I've yet to make any substantial edits, but I've been impressed with what you have brought to it. (Incidentally, you may find that WP:ODM is another forum worth discussing this article in).
However I'm sorry to say that I think that the article still needs further development, primarily in the area of the medal's historical origins and development. I find this to be fairly sketchy at the moment; certainly some attempt has been made to address it, but a little more context re. (for example) pre 1854 methods of rewarding gallantry, the practice of other European nations, who was the prime instigator for the institution of the medal and their motivations, etc. This is one aspect which I think needs development, on the other hand there are notable omissions - eg the whole area of awards by ballot is not even touched upon. There are also one or two dubious assertions, such as the section dealing with the discontinuation of the 'naval' VC - to the best of my knowledge, the 'red' of the army ribbon is exactly the same as the 'crimson' post 1918. This was simply a case of the navy ribbon being discontinued in favour of the army one - there was no change in the army shade to reflect the RN and RAF as the article seems to suggest.
One thing strikes me about the references - there are very few direct references to the medal's constituting Warrant. This must surely be a key source? Tracing the amendments to the Warrant over the years would be an important element of any history section.
These are just a few of my thoughts. WP:SOFIXIT would probably be a justifiable response - I'll certainly try to in the weeks ahead - but as it stands, I don't think that this can pass as FA.
Xdamrtalk 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your comments. I certainly agree that the subject warrants a FA.
  • I am adding more historical background with refs placed to the orignal clauses in warrants in the coming days, as will a new subsection on the ballots.
  • There is a picture here [[1]] that shows a red ribbon clearly different to the crimson seen today. In this article it suggests that it was changed to crimson. The RN blue ribbon was stopped because of the Raf being formed, as to why the ribbon is now crimson is not known. Most sources such as Ashcroft say it evolved. The army warrants state red. Woodym555 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added in some more background information specifically relating to Victoria and Albert and some little bits of information surrounding medal structure at the time(order of the bath). The article has been suplemented by the original warrants and clauses have been referenced. Any further comments would be welcome. Woodym555 19:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick reply for now. Re. the ribbon and your IWM picture; I agree that there is certainly a difference between that ribbon and the current one, however, to my eye at least, this is because the IWM picture (for whatever reason) has a heavy red tint. I've seen a few pre and post 1918 VCs and there is no particular difference between them. I think the Warrant's use of 'red' can be put down to mid-Victorian imprecision, nothing else. I have one or two of the standard works on British decorations so I'll try and lend a hand in fleshing out one or two of these areas.
Xdamrtalk 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the ribbon, is there anything else that prevents this from reaching FA, any other problems or qualms? Thankyou for your work so far. Woodym555 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I can see - Karanacs pointed out most of the other problems that I would have suggested work on. Good job, this article is certainly at the very least now up to GA, and I think that once the points rased here have been addressed an FA is deserved. As I say, I'll take a look over the content and see if I can supplement it, but otherwise it seems a good treatment of the subject.
Xdamrtalk 13:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose This is a very interesting article, but I can't support it for FA as is. The punctuation needs serious attention and several areas are missing citations.
    • In the lead there is a sentence that either needs a comma instead of a period or needs proper capitalization
      • Done
    • Should Gun really be capitalized in the lead?
      • Done, no it should not have been
    • Should Non Commissioned Officers be capitalized? In the article non-commissioned officer it is not. (I also recommend adding the wikilink)
      • Done, i have changed it and wikilinked it
    • "The medal structure of the time only rewarded officers...Yet there was no such..." You don't need "Yet,"
      • Done, removed yet
    • Lots of comma issues. Here are a few examples, but I recommend you read through the whole article to see if there are any others.
      • The sentence that begins "In other European countries" is a run-on sentence as it is currently punctuated. You can either substitute a semi-colon or a period for the comma after rank and be fine.
      • You do not need a comma after 29 January 1856,
      • Need a comma after "under the guidance of Prince Albert,"
      • Need a comma after a single year (In 1898,)
      • Do not need a comma after New Zealander,
        • Done, gone through the article and fixed the plethora of comma problems that afflicted the article
    • Citations should come after punctuation
      • Done, during the copyedit i couldn't find examples where they weren't, other than inline citations
    • You should combine the two sentences about Chinese guns.
      • Done, combined the sentence
    • I think it should be "is stored ina vault guarded by 15 Regiment..."
      • Done, put maintained instead as it is part of a system of logistical warehouses and stores in Donnington, guarded by RMP(Royal Military Police), i believe.
    • No period to end the sentence that is marked by citation 13. ("inscription FOR VALOR.")
      • Done, removed period
    • Should not be a period after "Australia, Canada, and New Zealand[25]"
      • Done, removed period
    • "As at January 2005" should be "As of January 2005"
      • Done, changed to of
    • In one place gunmetal is listed as one word, in others it is two words
      • Done, wikilinked first instance and changed to gunmetal everywhere else
    • Why are there [ ] around QROs?, and why is the period inside it?
      • Done, i have fixed the wikilink and deleted the abbreviation
    • Need a citation for this sentence: "In January 2006 the amount was $A3,230 per year which is indexed annually in line with Australian Consumer Price Index increases."
      • Done, added two citations that were clauses from the Australian Government
    • Three sententences in a row begin with "The largest number..." Would it be possible to mix this up?
      • Done, changed paragraph structure and merged one sentence, changed the remaining one
    • The sentence about Surgeon General Manley is a little unwieldy. Perhaps you could list the two crosses and then list the actions that he received them for.
      • Done, changed into two sentences
    • Need a citation for the number of surviving VC holders.
      • Done, added in new sentence about service that highlights the remaining survivors
    • Need citations for the paragraph that discusses Manley, Trigg and Roope.
      • Done, added individual citations
    • Need citation for "The change reflected the increasing difficulty in attaining the award."
      • Deleted the line as it is mere speculation, no verifiable source (i.e book) mentions it, it was really about making sure that acts of bravery could never be taken away from an individual no matter what else they may have done.
    • Need a citation for Richard Spooner section
      • Deleted the section as there was no verifiable references other than his wiki page
    • A lot of the information on Lummis seems misplaced in this article. It is not all about the VC, and it may not belong in this article.
      • Done, this was in the article due to a deletion dispute which resulted in a merger. The article has since been reinstated and so i have removed much of the information related to him.
        • This is much better, but I'd still remove the birth and death dates for Lummis and also remove the last sentence. He is important to this article solely because he had a large archive that resulted in a book. Karanacs 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done, cut down to recommended levels
    • Instead of "as yet unissued," need to have "as of XXXX, unissued"
      • Done, changed sentences
    • For articles that have an author, you must include the author name in the citation (see cite 3).
      • Done, changed some to cite news template and amended accordingly
    • All citations must have a publisher (see 4, 12, etc)
      • Done, added publisher
    • Is there any way to trim the list of external links? There are a lot listed here.
      • Done, I have cut down the links and have created an Archives subsection

Karanacs 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first replies are in bold, i will rectify the citations and commas in a thorough copyedit. Woodym555 11:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All replies are in bold and i have now done the copyedit, i hope all your objections have been rectified. Thanks Woodym555 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a good job so far. I went throught it one more time to check out the citations, though, and I added fact tags in other places where the citations appear to be missing. It may be that those facts are cited by articles already listed, but I did not find them in the citation that was closest to the fact. Karanacs 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think i got all of your fact tags, a slight sense of overkill, (the sky is blue [citation needed]) but i do understand the need for a completely referenced encyclopedia, just hard sometimes finding obscure data on annuitys! especially when Hansard seems to be down. I now hope that your objections have been met, thankyou for your thoroughness. Woodym555 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and great work! I am especially impressed that you've already included the information about the NZ VC being awarded today. Good luck! Karanacs 01:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have previously edited this article when the Alfred Shout VC was sold. The effort of editors since to get to this standard is commendable. Gnangarra 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now that the concerns have been pretty well addressed, I have no hesitation in commending this as a top-notch bit of work. --Xdamrtalk 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Victoria_Cross&oldid=1144514716"