Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients (N–Z)/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 Giants2008 19:06, 7 August 2011 [1].

List of Victoria Cross recipients (N–Z)

[edit]

List of Victoria Cross recipients (N–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last part of a three part set, the other two have been recently promoted. This builds on the reviews of the last two and I think it meets the FL criteria. Thanks for your time, Woody (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support
  1. Sorting by unit Samuel Wassall 18th Foot comes between the 78th and 81st
  2. Sorting by rank Bombardier seems to be in the wrong place amongst the privates.
  3. Reginald Sartorius links to two ranks MajorSergeant

Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All were rather stupid errors on my part, all fixed now thanks. I've put sorting for Bombardier as equivalent to Lance Corporal as it was at the time of the Crimean War/Indian Mutiny. Thanks for spotting these. Woody (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were my only concerns.Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. why is there no link to the first two list in the series? perhaps in see also? all three lists should link to the other two.
  2. why is there no ref for each entry? this seems to be how the other lists are done (granted I'm new so I may not be aware of something here).
PumpkinSky talk 01:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In connection to number one there is a link at the bottom of the article Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the refs, in all the other FLs I've looked at either: a) each list row has its own ref or b) there is a generic ref at the top that says something like "all these entries are found at "source xyz". So how is that the first two lists got to FL status and this one doesn't have ref for the entries? Can someone explain what I'm missing here? If it's in article somewhere, I missed it and pls point me to it. I simply what to understand how this works better. PumpkinSky talk 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As with a lot of FLs, this list uses a general reference. All of the information in this list can be found in about 10 pages in a table form at the end of Brazier's book as well another list in Arthur's book. These books are listed in the references section. If we put a reference for each cell into the table then we would have a reference used 100 times over (as the book has about 100 recipients per page). That wouldn't work very well. The references simply wouldn't be able to cope with it.
In terms of providing a links to the other two more prominently alongside the existing navbox, I can definitely see your point. Perhaps a hatnote at the top of the page with "This article is part of an alphabetical series, see (A-F) (G-M)" Thanks for your review, Woody (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something linking the three articles besides a big template at the bottom is needed. As for the general refs, that's fine, but I recommend two things: listing the pages of the table and putting a note at the top of the list mentioning the ref. RIght now we can't even tell which of the general refs you're talking about. These two things should be done in the other two lists too. I saw this thing with the general ref listed at the top (it used an 'a' instead of a ref number) but I can't recall what list it was in so I can't show you how it was done right now. PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in a hatnote now, does that work for you? Personally, I think the referencing as it is is the most accurate. General references aren't a rarity and I don't think it will confuse anyone. Whilst the vast majority of the list is sourced specifically from the table at the end, some points have to be checked in the main body of the books (usually posthumous details). As such it wouldn't be entirely accurate to list the specific page numbers of the table/list at the head of the table as you suggest. We could however put something along the lines of "The data in the table is predominantly sourced from Arthur and Brazier." Woody (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be a butthead or anything, I'm trying to learn. I'm still new. When I started on wiki I was beat up for "everything has to have a ref (some people virtually every sentence) and books must list the pages and the refs have to follow the material". But now you're saying that isn't necessarily so. So, I check the FLs (there are several) on the American equivalent of the VC, the Medal of Honor, and some have refs done like these VC ones, and some have refs at the column header for the notes column, such as List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_the_Vietnam_War. All of the Medal of Honor ones use a pretty info box in the upper right to link to the other FLs in the series. You may want to consider that but it's certainly not a deal breaker. Very nice work on this series. I now have no problem Supporting. PumpkinSky talk
I wasn't trying to badger you and I certainly understand your frustration in trying to learn all of the different quirks/rules/guidelines etc. Everything certainly has to be referenced, there are just various ways of going about doing that. That can be hard to comprehend even for those of us who have been around a while! Thanks for your review, Woody (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Comma would be nice after Andrew Fitzgibbon in the lead.
  • "for saving his brother, Lieutenant Hugh Gough. Hugh Gough...". Would be better without the repetition from one sentence to the next. You could even combine the two sentences in the form of "Lieutenant Hugh Gough, who...", since that wouldn't be too long.
  • Another comma would be good after John Gough in the next sentence.
  • Get a dash into the section heading (N-Z).
  • Comma before "this is reflected in this list" should be a semi-colon.
  • The date of action column for Dighton Probyn is sorting oddly. It is sorting first in order, but there are quite a few earlier than 1857 to 1858.
  • Stray bracket in the date of action column for Bill Speakman.
  • Note F: Is Forces a proper noun when used in this way? If not, don't capitalize it.
All done thanks apart from the last one. This came up in the last review and was sort of unresolved. The spaced ones are in {{London Gazette}}. Personally I'm a fan of unspaced ones but if it is a deal-breaker I'm happy to add a space to all of the book refs. Thanks as ever for your thorough review, regards. Woody (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand if the template doesn't let you do anything about it. Reference 20, however, doesn't have a template but has a space present. Might as well make that one consistent with the other book cites. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted thanks, Woody (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nicely done again! You may want to consider changing the footnote syntax by using {{#tag:ref| text of footnote.<ref>citation of footnote</ref>|group="Note"}}. This makes it much easier to add another footnote at a later time without having to keep the ordering sequence in mind. Another suggestion, you explained the abbreviation of RAF (Royal Air Force) before the table but all the other abbreviations such as AIF, RAAF, NZEF are not explained, also maybe worth considering. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Ref 17 is a note, not a ref.
  • Ref 7, if it really is p. 6702, then it should be p. 6,702.
  • Refs 4 and 6 are the same, so use ref name.
  • Consistency in refs, is there a space after p. (or pp.) or not?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorted Ref 17 and 4 and 6 duplication thanks. For the other two, they are part of the functionality of {{London Gazette}}. The p./pp. is explained above with Giants2008's review: the template produces them with a space but I use no spaces for the book refs. As I said above, if it is a deal-breaker I can add spaces to the book refs, but I would prefer not to. In terms of 6702, rather surprisingly it is indeed page 6702. I can't add the comma as the page number is part of the web address, to add a comma would break the reference. Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2011 (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_Victoria_Cross_recipients_(N–Z)/archive1&oldid=1089816171"