Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [1].

---

List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign

Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign/archive1

The last one of the campaign series of VC lists. This brings together all of the lists into one in the same way that the nationality list does. It forks out those lists that don't fit into to the main list. All of the other lists bar the WWII one (which is at FLC) are FLs. I think this meets all the criteria and I have tried to take into account the issues encountered in previous FLCs. Thank you for your time, Woody (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments I would state exactly what the VC is all about before saying how many recipients/awards there are. Is there a particular reason why Orders is capitalised? "some specify one date, some date ranges, some the name of the battle and others have both sets of information" - mildly confusing - you mention three elements of information (date, range, name) then say "others have both sets" - a minor reword I think to say either a date or range of dates, then some the name of the battle - my comment is mildly confusing...! You get my drift? "although official policy was to not award the VC posthumously" - is this referenced? Probably the most minor point ever - "six of the soldiers" followed by "six officers and men." in reference to the same group. I know exactly what this means, but would everyone else? "There are several statistics related to the largest number of VCs awarded in individual battles." - is this really necessary? Don't the following sentences go on to say that, and more? "Willie Apiata received the Victoria Cross for New Zealand on 26 July 2007" - why? The other two guys have their award explained... Don't like blank cells. Can you fill all with em-dash? Now, what an interesting sortable table... you have a kind of sub-heading thing going on which makes sorting by recipient a little odd, but, I think I can live with it... However, pay heed to WP:MOSBOLD. And when sorting by recipient, the "recipient" links sort by year, not alphabetically. It makes some sense to me, but is it actually what everyone else would expect? And do you need the numbers in the links, why not just have the theatre of conflict (i.e. instead of 16 Second Afghan War recipients, just Second Afghan War recipients would work for me). No need for (none) (imo - just the note will work, perhaps with an em-dash again). I think perhaps to be explicit, you should highlight in a different colour/symbol those chaps who received multiple VCs. Badcoe has three individual dates listed - can you explain this? Did he just get one VC for three separate acts or three posthumous VCs? Note B - unlink "and" in "and Bar". Ditto Note C, and be consistent with the capitalisation of bar throughout. Ref 8 should be pp. Ref 11 has a spare full stop. Ref 12 has an ISO format date which is inconsistent with the rest of the references. Good luck with this and then the topic. Please, please ping me when you list the topic at WP:FTC. Best regards. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Once again, thanks for your reviews TRM. I think I got everything bar two things: In terms of multiple recipients, nobody in this list is a double recipient, they are all in the sub-lists. Badcoe was awarded it for "three acts of heroism." The date comment in the lead is designed (or meant to anyway) to soften up the reader for these. There are many recipients who have received it for two separate acts on different days, usually within a month or two and in the same series of action. In terms of sorting, the default is per the chronological order of the campaign. When you hit sort on the recipients it should sort alphabetically as normal. The sublists will always be sorted chronologically at the top of the table. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'm wondering why the nationality list needs to exist. Since we have the wonder of the sortable table, can't you just put the nationalities in here and rename the list to List of Victoria Cross recipients? "It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals; it may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and to civilians under military command." I haven't noticed this in previous lists, but this sentence doesn't flow well for two reasons: 1) the repetition of "it"; and 2) the semicolon makes the sentence stilted (this coming from someone who uses it frequently). I suggest "It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals, and may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and to civilians under military command." (of course, then you have the "and repetition", so if you can improve on that...) "whilst "—"while" is plainer and much nicer. "awarded the VC and Bar, that is a medal" I think "that" should be "which". "two separate actions" separate as opposed to... "to 1353 individual recipients" Can recipients be anything but individuals (a genuine question)? "is the First World War, where 628 medals were awarded to 627 recipients." First World War is not a location. Suggest "is the First World War, for which 628 medals were awarded to 627 recipients." "largest number awarded in a single action " I think you mean "for a single action" (there's a subtle difference here) "Victoria Crosses; the Victoria Cross for Australia, the Victoria Cross for Canada, and the Victoria Cross for New Zealand." Use a colon instead of a semicolon. Can you center the em dashes in the table? Use {{center}} if necessary. Why do the orange-highlighted rows not have an accompanying symbol? I added periods to the ends of the legend explanations since they are complete sentences, and would be much obliged if you could do the same for your other lists. "This rule was changed in 1881 to only allow acts" Switch the order of "allow" and "only". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I have done all of the requests above. In terms of the nationality lists, it would be a problem given the size of this list and the fact that it relies on sublists. If a user wanted to see the list of Indian recipients they would not be able to acquire a full list using the sort function as he would have to search each individual list. I have tried a full list in one of my sandboxes but it isn't feasible as the page is too large, particularly when editing or viewing diffs; I tried it without nationality as well and this would further increase the page width. As such I don't think a merger would be feasible. Thanks for the review, regards, Woody (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - this is a well written and constructed list that meets the criteria. I do have two minor comments, however:

• There is some inconsistency with the presentation of access dates in the references section.
• Shouldn't Iraq War be listed instead of Operation Telic in regards to Johnson Beharry? On all of the other recipients listed they are recorded by war/campaign, rather than an operation within that conflict like Beharry.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorted, thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.