Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Second World War Victoria Cross recipients/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:04, 8 August 2009 [1].

List of Second World War Victoria Cross recipients[edit]

Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Next Victoria Cross list (WWI list is still active, but getting there I think). This follows the usual pattern, closely mimicing the WWI list and others in the series. Thanks for your time, regards Woody (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - just two quick things:
  • I don't know if this is applicable to quite a few of the recipients listed—I just noticed it mainly among the Australians—but in quite a number of the Australians listed their unit is given as their division or brigade, rather than their battalion, and I was wondering why this was?
  • If one goes done to the "Notes" section and clicks on one of the arrows, it only takes you to where the first time it is used. As I have not used such notes before I thought it better to ask, is there a problem with the notes in the article or is this just how it is?

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is only with this list as I couldn't find many article of the battalions and I couldn't see many being created in the future so I upped to the nearest blue link. In most cases there weren't articles for the brigades let alone the battalions. There were a lot of redlinks with little "What links here." If you think they will all make viable articles then I am happy to change them to battalion links here.
That is just how the {{ref label}} system works. Given it can only point to one, it points to the first. I prefer it to mixing footnotes with refs. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the way AustralianRupert has been working, it should only be a matter of time before the Australian units are up, but it might be best to upate the list as it goes a long.
It is a shame with the notes, but I do agree it is better than mixing it with the refs. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added all the AIF battalions in now. Some stubs will soon be following! Woody (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you use the "group" parameter in the standard "ref" type notes to divide footnotes for citations? I haven't tried to use it myself, but I've seen it in use. David Underdown (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You still have the same problem where it doesn't link back to the individual instance as far as I am aware. Woody (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The introduction seems to be slightly the wrong way around. The VC should probably be introduced before it is stated how many were awarded during the war.
  • There seems to be a greater focus/emphasis on the conflict in Europe, and little on other theatres, such as in the Pacific or Mediteraniean.
  • Also—similar to Ian's niggle in the WWI VC list—the focus is also on the war, rather than VC recipients of the conflict, particularly in the area of naval and aerial engagements/VC recipients.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Had a comprehensive reword, can you take a look and see what you think? Obviously it is very hard to try and capture everything that happened in WWII in this small lead. I have tried to provide links to all appropriate articles and included more info about the VC. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have done an excellent job encompassing all of the theatres and including specific references to recipients. I am happy to support now. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
    • Not noticed this before, but is it worth linking service in the context of "...in any service ..."?
    • "organized " -> use organised for BritEng.
    • Likewise "mobilization ".
    • "6 year " should be hyphenated I think.
    • "saw 5 Victoria Crosses " - prefer "five".
    • "saw 5 Victoria Crosses " is repeated. Can we rework a touch?
    • Not sure you should link "and" with the "and bar". Removing that link also would ensure people see "bar" as something additional rather than assume you just linked VC again...
    • "and bar" or "and Bar"... be consistent.
    • "a *, indicates" no need for comma, unless you put one before the "along"...
    • Should "2/2nd Batallion" (etc) sort after "81st West African..."?
    • Notes need consistent full stop rules applied.
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D0ne all of those I think. I linked in any service to British Armed Forces. Do you reckon that is a worthwhile change? Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if that covers the entire scope of people allowed to receive the VC, I think it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it some more, it doesn't cover it, particularly for WWII, given the huge number of Commonwealth forces that fought in the war. If there was a link to Commonwealth Armed forces then that would work. There isn't though, and I doubt there ever will be given the huge scope for that. So, I think we should remove the link and leave it unlinked? How do you feel about it? Regards, Woody (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a more generic article to link to then perhaps we can leave it. It was just a thought that service can be ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could use Armed forces or Military? Woody (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about Military service? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think armed forces would be better, military service is more about compulsory army service. David Underdown (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David is right, Armed forces is about forces make-up in general which is the context of "service" in the article so I have linked to it instead. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • WRT the above "armed forces" link issue, please fix that in all your VC lists if necessary. A small thing, but I'm a stickler about consistency across similar articles/lists!
  • "was a global military conflict which involved a"-->was a global military conflict that involved a
  • "Throughout the 6-year duration of the war" Numbers under 10 are typically spelled out.
  • "mobilisation of over 100 million military personnel" and Prefer "more than" to "over", but it's purely personal preference.
  • "technology improved rapidly" Comma after here.
  • "Over seventy million people" Same comment about the "over"/"more than" issue, but "seventy" should definitely be "70".
  • "The start of the war is generally held to be 1 September 1939" "held" sounds strange to me, although it may EngVar at work. Perhaps "considered"
  • "so called" Hyphenate, I think.
  • "which saw German U-boats attempting to disrupt and destroy allied convoys."-->in which German U-boats attempted to disrupt and destroy allied convoys.
  • "the war was fought in several theatres" Comma after here.
  • "two separate acts" "separate", as opposed to...?
  • "awarded; five soldiers"-->awarded; and five soldiers
  • "Upham was only the third recipient of the Victoria Cross and Bar, and the first for combatant actions, the previous two recipients being medical officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps."-->Upham was the third recipient of the Victoria Cross and Bar, and the first for combatant actions; the previous two recipients were medical officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps.
  • Notes B and C are not complete sentences and should not have periods at the end.
  • I'd prefer if note F had an inline citation, even if it's verifiable by one of the general references. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done all but the "held" one as it sounds better to me, maybe because I'm a Brit. In terms of the Armed forces thing, I will wait to see if it sticks before changing all the others. Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor point: in ref 2, I think "The Gazette" should be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Second_World_War_Victoria_Cross_recipients/archive1&oldid=306883610"