Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Victoria Cross for Australia/archive1


 * 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 not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Victoria Cross for Australia
Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So has anyone got any objections now, i think i fixed all the content ones. Previous editors in the discussion are welcome to return and discuss further... Thanks. Woodym555 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article. There are a few issues that weren't clear to me, or need more work: Thanks for an interesting read. Maralia 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences ("The Victoria Cross for Australia (VC) is a military decoration awarded for valour "in the presence of the enemy"[1] to members of the Australia Armed Forces." and "It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service, and to civilians under military command.") are directly contradictory in terms of who is eligible for the award.
 * Which part is contradictory? Any service relates to the Armed Forces (Navy, army etc). The civilian command means that contractors employed by the armed forces are eligible. So, they are part of the forces, just not part of a specific "service". Woodym555 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would never consider civilian contractors to be 'members of the armed forces', so the first and second sentences appear contradictory. I think the explanation in the 2nd sentence is clear and precise; how about merging the two into "a person of any rank in any service of the Australian Defence Force, and to civilians under military command"? (Note: I've used ADF here because Australia Armed Forces redirects to Military of Australia which redirects to Australian Defence Force - correct me if I'm wrong, but the double redirect seems needless.) Maralia 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have described both the original Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia as VC in the lead; this is confusing. Expansion: you introduce the abbreviation "Victoria Cross for Australia (VC)" in the lead - but you use VC indiscriminately to refer to both the British and the Australian awards throughout.
 * Corrected now, i have used the expanded version throughout. Woodym555 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to reorganize the lead because I found the repeated transitions between old & new VCs confusing. After further reading, I decided my reorganization wasn't great and reverted it, but I still feel that the lead confusingly leaps from new to old to new to old.
 * In the History section, you have used both "cannons" and "cannon" as plural of the word cannon.
 * Thankyou very much for the copyedit. I have rearranged the lead and removed some information. I have tried to strike a balance between the old and the new. Is this what you were thinking? Woodym555 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got the right idea with the reorg in the lead. I think you should also rewrite the "from the gunmetal of weapons" fact to frame it in terms of the VCA, though - for the purpose of this article, it's not important what the old medal is made from, but rather what this medal is to be made from.
 * I have rephrased the sentence to provide emphasis on the VCA. Thanks. Woodym555 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Maralia raises the issue I had in the previous FAC. Too much of this article is about the original VC, which makes me believe that this article would be of more use to the reader if stripped down to the pure VC for Aus parts (rather small), and presented within the Victoria Cross article.  Pagra shtak  19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although i cannot speak for Maralia, i think s/he was talking about the confusion within the lead. I agree with their conclusions when i read through the lead again. I have restructured it now to try and address those concerns. I reiterate that i think the article itself gives the history of the VC for OZ and of the history surrouding it. Woodym555 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that confusion is an issue I raised in the previous FAC. My solution is presented above.  Pagra shtak  20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Pagrashtak. While the article is well-written, there is so little information available about the Australian Victoria Cross that much of the article is duplicated from the other VC articles.  Karanacs 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Opposing something because there is little information available. The article is complete, and is missing no references. Twenty Years 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It is well written (as stated above), and it easily meets the FA criteria. Twenty Years 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support as User:Twenty Years and others the article is well written and meets the FA criteria. Everlast 1910 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per last time.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Lack of information: is the medal transferrable? what was the honourable medal before the VC being made? will the medal be awarded for those who are non-Australian citizens but who have made a great contribution to Australia? is the medal being regarded as the highest honour in Australia? neutral Coloane 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to transferable, no. I have added in a sentence about this. I don't understand what you mean by "what was the honourable medal before the VC being made?" If you mean, what was the medal before these, then: Before the VC for OZ, it was the VC, before that there was not one. I think this is made clear in the text. The last two points are made in the text. It is awarded to Australian citizens, and that is what is stated in the text. (of course, politicians may change this later, or special circumstances may arise, but that is speculation). It is stated in the text that it is the highest honour. I have now repeated this. Any other problems? Woodym555 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - my objections stay from the last nomination (why was it restarted, by the way?). I agree with the editors above that there is not enough information in this article to distinguish it from a slightly elongated subsection of the main VC article. A featured article is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work, and in my opinion this article does not meet that standard, despite the good work the editor(s) may have put in. There are bits missing, like the development of how the medal for Australia came about, which although there may not be anything on the internet, is lacking in the article. I would like to see this expanded and filled out with more relevant information, or some reliable sources telling me that no such information is available on that topic, before I will consider changing my mind on this. JRG 05:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What i have said is, there isn't anything in Hansard, which, given that it is the archive of all parliamentary activity, suggests that sources will be lacking. Given that, I am looking for more sources on the discussions leading to its creation. I have left notes at WP:AUS and WP:ODM for sources as well.
 * I would just like to reiterate to all that this article contains information that the Victoria Cross article does not and could not reasonably contain. You cannot divorce this medal from its point of common origin, the Imperial award. It (so far as Australians go) inherits the customs, dignity, and position of the Victoria Cross as the pre-eminent award for military valour. This article currently contains all the information that you would want regarding the Victoria Cross for Australia, with the exception that JRG has pointed out. I think that any duplication is therefore neccessary to create a complete article on this medal. Woodym555 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you tried printed sources and printed parliamentary material, like Government Gazettes (or whatever they call them in Federal Parliament) which would discuss individual ministerial actions? Hansard only publishes the main house reports and committee reports, so there's a lot that doesn't make it into Hansard. Have you emailed the Department of Defence or the Australian War Memorial on sources that might be able to expand this article? I'm very sure there would be some more detailed infomration out there to expand this article properly. I also have another point - the proposal by Chris Schacht in 1991 to award the medal to 3 Australians included John Simpson Kirkpatrick as one of the recipients - as he is so well known in Australian military history because of his role in the Gallipoli campaign, surely this would be worth a mention? JRG 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.