Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients from the British 2nd Division/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Victoria Cross recipients from the British 2nd Division[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients from the British 2nd Division/archive1

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to save space on the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, a series of sub-articles was created. This list documents the ~40 gentlemen who earned the Victoria Cross, while they served with the division throughout four different wars (the Crimean War, the Second Boer War, and the First and Second World Wars). I initially put this up reviewed at A-Class standard, but was advised to proceed to here. I look forward to feedback and improving the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"published in the The London Gazette" - stray word there
Thanks for the catch, and removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does ref 1 cover the whole first paragraph
Yes. I could split the ref into two, although it would then be one ref for the first three sentences and another for the final sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"eighteen members of the division were earned VCs" => "eighteen members of the division earned VCs"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refs look better centred, IMHO
UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference between Lieutenant (Acting Captain) and Lieutenant (temporary Captain)?
Yes, but I cannot explain the difference. The Gazette uses that wording for those individual's ranks. I have looked at various sources, but cannot offer an explanation to what the difference between each (the explanations I have seen are, for me at least, beyond confusing). I have seen examples of acting officers becoming temporary officers and vice versa.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't linked in the template at the bottom. It should either be linked or the template removed
I have added the article to the template.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and comments. I have attempted to address your concerns with either comments or tweaks to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments

Really good lead and sourcing.
ThanksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image needs alt text for accessibility.
I have entered some alt-text, although I am not sure its the bestEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Names should sort by last name – use Template:Sortname or data-sort-value=Last, First.
Template insertedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources column should be unsortable.
Tweaked madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider changing from absolute to relative column widths – allows for better use of screen space.
I have updated the columns, hopefully this works?
The links to Battle of Inkerman for Thomas Beach and Battle of Colenso for William Babtie are confusing, since every other link in the column is to a place. I would replace or remove them.
I have updated the links, so that they go to the actual location and not the battle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address all of your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Whoever suggested posting this here had a great idea; this is a great list! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

The table has been made sortable since I looked previously. I am afraid this means you will now need to wikilink any item that appears multiple times each time it appears, not just the first. Hopefully this can be done relatively painlessly with a search-and-replace...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just made an edit to the article to add in links for everything. It looks really wrong to me lol. But, hopefully, this is the now in the correct standard for a list?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I fixed a redlink for you) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image is freely licensed, per my evaluation at the ACR.[2] (t · c) buidhe 10:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I am not sure that "Russian Empire" is a "country". I mean, you use "India" or "Colony of Natal", not British Empire.
Why are we told that Natal is a colony. You don't use Republic of France' or 'Kingdom of Belgium'.
I have not made changes in reference to either of these two point just yet. My understanding is that "Russian Empire" was the name of the state, the Crimea being part of it, and not one of the empire's colonies or territories outside of the core (i.e. Alaska, Finland, Poland etc.). I am more than happy to reword this, but I don't think "Russia" would suffice as it would appear to refer more to the modern state? I concede the point on Natal, I can change that to just Natal?

Russia was Russia before it was an empire, while it was an empire and after it ceased to be an empire. Just like Britain. If the fighting had been in Kent, not Crimeria, would you not have written "Britain", not "British Empire"?

That is a fair point. I have piped the link to the Russian Empire to just state Russia. Likewise, for Natal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the hyphenated ranks see MOS:HYPHEN: "Do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for a proper name".
I just wanted to check in on this one, prior to making changes. The Gazette capitalizes both parts of the rank, and this is the way the rank is wrote in other sources. Would this not be considered a proper name then? Or, would that only apply if it was used in a sentence i.e. "blah blah Brevet-Major John Conolly..."? Checking in primarily for my own confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh! Usually I am strong on the MoS, but you raise a good point - which I had missed - and the Gazette is the RS. False alarm, apologies, leave them as they are.

Why do you give the departments for some locations - Oppy, Pas-de-Calais - but not others - Delville Wood?
For Oppy, I had just left it alone based off the article name. I have piped it, so there is conformity.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In cites 3 and 4, several uses of "p." should be 'pp.'.
Thanks for the catch, I have fixed these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Victoria Cross Heroes" is missing a publisher location.
UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As is "The Evolution of the Victoria Cross".
UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Midas books" → 'Midas Books'.
UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"after the conclusion of hostilities, it was stood-down." I am not sure that "stood-down" is the appropriate expression. Eg, see Wikt:stand-down: A time when soldiers are not on alert.
I have reworded this to disbandedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It was again raised". Perhaps 'formed' instead of "raised"?
Tweaked accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"so its forces could be reassigned elsewhere". "elsewhere" from where? (I suggest deletion.)
Word removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"by soldiers who had been part of the division" → 'by soldiers who were part of the division'.
Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the division had not been in battle". "had" → 'has'.
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A great list. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for your time in reviewing another article. I have attempted to address the majority of your comments, and left a few of my own were changes have not been made just yet.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: the table in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption), which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header; column headers should be tagged with scope="col", and the cells of the primary (first) column should be tagged with scope="row". These are to allow screen reading software to parse the tables correctly. I've gone ahead and done this for you; if you bring future lists to FLC please keep this in mind. Beyond that, source review passed, promoting. --Pres N 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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