Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Victoria Cross for New Zealand


 * 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Victoria Cross for New Zealand
(Self-nomination) Although this article is short, in my opinion it is worthy of FA standard. It sailed through GA which is its current status. It is comprehensive in it's coverage of the highest medal for gallantry that can be awarded to New Zealand personnel. Thanks in advance for any comments. Woodym555 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems very unnecessary to have links to the other three Victoria Cross articles both in Similar decorations section, the See also section and in the Victoria Cross template. --Peter Andersen 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, point taken, removed them from the "see also" section. I think they serve a purpose in the other sections though. Woodym555 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment only one problem the prose of the section "Awarding the Medal" isnt coherent there two distinct discusions taking place and over lapping each other. The result is that the final sentence As with the original Victoria Cross any recommendations will pass through the military hierachy to the Minister for Defence.[20] reads as if its tacked on. There appears to be some formal process as to how the final decision to award is reached, that needs to given some depth. Bill (Willy) Apiata current status should be equal unimpeded explanation as well. Gnangarra 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I now support the promtoions to FA, if it wasnt already clear from my comment below Gnangarra 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Nice well written and well reffed page. It seems to tell me all I need to know about Victoria Cross for New Zealand. Giano 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "The Victoria Cross for New Zealand was established in 1999 and, as of July 2007, has been awarded only once." - er ... !!! So this is an article about an award that was only awarded once? I was wondering why the lead for this article seemed to be a copy of Victoria Cross, and why there is a long list of unrelated awards (Medal of Honor for example; not a cross, nothing to do with Victoria, nothing to do with New Zealand ...) . There just isn't a lot to say here that isn't said better elsewhere. Sorry. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment since the Victoria Cross has always been awarded to New Zealand service personnel, the difference is that since 1999 the confirmation of the award has been removed from the UK system to a wholely NZ system. This change doesnt dimmish or revalue past/present/future recipients, its still the highest award for valour in New Zealand. What it does do is alter the process that itself warrant an article, but given that the new process has already conferred the award to someone its even more appropriate to distinguish that process from the Victoria Cross article where the inclusion of this person is no longer appropriate. Gnangarra 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understood that. It sounds like you're saying that the article is about every time the Victoria Cross, in any incarnation, has ever been awarded to New Zealanders. If so, then it's misleadingly titled, and still largely a copy of the Victoria Cross article, and still doesn't justify a list of unrelated awards for other countries... In short, still oppose. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the equivalent of the Medal of Honor and the others, for New Zealanders hence the see also section. Commonality between this article and the article Victoria Cross is also to be expected given that it was until 1999 the same award. Maybe the article could be at Victoria Cross (New Zealand) instead. Gnangarra 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was originally at Victoria Cross (New Zealand) but this is not its official name and as such i think it would breach the WP:NAME guidelines. The Victoria Cross for New Zealand is a separate award to the Victoria Cross, awarded by a separate Government. The list of New Zealander Victoria Cross recipients and other Victoria Cross related lists cover the New Zealand recipients perfectly adequately. The Similar awards section is added to provide a link to the other Highest awards of gallantry that a country can bestow. After a comment on the peer review of the VC for Australia article i have decided to create a template that would replace this section. I am not entirely clear of your objections, do you think the article should include all New Zealander recipients of the VC? The fact that the VC for New Zealand has been awarded only once does not disqualify it from having an article on Wikipedia. Woodym555 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not nominating the article for deletion, I just don't think it's original enough for featured article status. It's basically about the history of the Victoria Cross in general, not about the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. FAs should not be mostly material that best belongs in other articles, that's just not our best work. For those who want chapter and verse, it fails Featured article criteria #4, "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". It does not stay focused on the main topic, as over half the article is not about the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (unindent)I don't think i can address these comments, and the comments made in the discussion on AnonEMouse's talk page. To put in information about all New Zealanders would be going against the title of the page. It is about the VC for NZ and its history. Its history is deeply intertwined with that of the Victoria Cross. The history of the Victoria Cross is pertinent and important in understanding the history of this separate award.
 * As to removing the appearances section, i think that would be completely wrong. Just because the appearance is the same as the VC, it does not mean that the appearances section of this page should be replaced with a wikilink. In terms of criterion 4, the article is focused on the main topic: the VC for NZ. For the origins of the history section, the VC and VCNZ share the same for the most part. All the information on the history of the Victoria Cross is not included in this article, only the information that is pertinent to the VCNZ is retained in this article.
 * I have discussed this at the WP:ODM talk page and User:Xdamr, one of the main contributors in this field, agrees that the VC for NZ should stay focused on the VC for NZ and not on all New Zealanders who ever won the Victoria Cross. Simply put i cannot fix your oppose vote, it is in effect a conscientious objection. Woodym555 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 *  Oppose —''Please fix spelled out conversion (inches)—MOS. Faulty prose throughout. Random examples—semicolong in lead is wrong; more commas would make for easier reading; "the medal can reach over £200,000 at auction"—sounds like my arm reaching over to get something. "Several countries"—unencyclopedic vagueness. Needs serious work. Withdraw and reconsider, please. Tony 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is faulty prose throughout. Whilst the medal statement in the intro could be misread, i don't think it will be. Even so i have changed the sentence to reflect your concerns. It now reads as "medal has been sold for over £200,000 at auction." In terms of 'needs serious work' could you please be more specific? Thanks Woodym555 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Should the "References" section be "Further reading"? Are any of these cited in the article? Check hyphens in "Notes"; at least one is wrong. Imperial and metrics main units? Inconsistent. Tony 11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * References and further reading have now been separated. There was only one hyphen that i could see in the notes and that should have been a dash: changed it. (am i blind, i couldn't see any hyphens, sorry if i am missing something) It is now a metric article as per MOS and NZ convention. Thanks for your constructive comments. Woodym555 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * MOS breaches in title case for titles.
 * FixedWoodym555 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * MOS breach in "27 g" and "mm".
 * FixedWoodym555 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * MOS breach in period after non-sentence captions.
 * FixedWoodym555 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nonfree Image:VictoriaCrossObv.jpg, used in this article, has no fair-use rationale. —Angr 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FU rationale has been added by the uploader, User:Xdamr. Woodym555 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't. Xdamr merely removed the no-rationale tag without adding a rationale. The image is used in several articles and needs a separate rationale for each use; so far it doesn't have a rationale for any. —Angr 17:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You were right, it hadn't, just the bolierplate had been added. I have now orphaned the image due to the existence of an admittedly lower quality, free use image. I have now orphaned the fair use image (therefore there are no more image problems with this article). Thanks Woodym555 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose . I have to concur with AnonEMouse. You (Woodym555) rightly emphasize that this is a different award than the original VC. But then why is about half of the lead section about the original VC? I can understand that a couple of sentences are necessery to give the historical background, but certainly not half of the lead. The same goes for the main part of the article. Why all of this information about the materials the original award was made out of? I think only the metal used now is relevant.--Carabinieri 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the same metal used now that is used for the Victoria Cross. That is why the history is included, because it has shares its history with the Victoria Cross. I will try to amend the lead soon. Woodym555 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to say that i have amended the lead to completely focus on the VC for NZ. I have not changed the metal because the history is completely pertinent and relevant. Any other concerns? Woodym555 11:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead looks good now. What I was referring to with my remarks concerning the origing of the metal used in the VC, is that there are several sentences referring to metals that were never used for the VC for NZ. Only the third sentence in the second paragraph of the "Victoria Cross" section seems to be about metal actually used in the NZ medals. --Carabinieri 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * After rereading the article i see your concerns. I have removed the information about the metal during WWI and WWII, beacuse, as you rightly stated it does not pertain to the VC for NZ. Any other areas of concern? Thanks Woodym555 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No that's all. The article is a bit short, but it does seem to cover the topic about as extensively as possible, considering the fact that the cross has only been awarded once. So I support.--Carabinieri 11:28, 30 August 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.