Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients/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 Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009.

List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients

 * Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been a while since I have been at FLC with a Victoria Cross list but this still follows the old pattern of the other lists in the series, except this one is a bit larger; I don't envisage this list having any 3B issues ;). This list has been in development in a sandbox for about 6 months but I think it now meets all of the criteria, I hope you agree. Thanks, Woody (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Although I would like to see a few more images it looks like a good list. Sorry I had to change this to oppose for now, there appears to be about 35 DAB links and I would like to see those fixed before I support. --Kumioko (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixing now, but it is taking some time. Woody (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All done now thanks. Woody (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it thanks, I changed mine to support. --Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - a well written, presented and referenced list. My only comment is that there is a little inconsistency with the presentation of access dates in the "References" section. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. Thanks, Woody (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support all done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from
 * Dabs and external links check out fine.
 * Lead
 * Unlink common/well known countries per WP:OVERLINK. Eg. United Kingdom
 * Be consistent with the usage of acronyms, either use the acronym VC or spell it out in all uses per WP:ACRONYM.
 * Key
 * This along with the *, indicates a posthumous award -- instead of the use a
 * Footnotes
 * Footnote A needs a period.-- T ru  c o   503 23:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done all bar the "overlinking" never been a particular fan of that one. In this case I think they fall under Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, Take this excerpt: &mdash;Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire&mdash; They all link to particular entities that the majority of our readers know nothing about. In the text the only "overlinking" I can see would be France and United Kingdom; given that all the other countries I linked, I don't think it neccessary it correct to remove the linking from those two countries. Regards, Woody (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, removing the links to the well known countries (UK, France) will make the more valuable links stand out to the reader because the sea of blue is reduced. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read that guideline and I am not seeing a sea of blue; I don't think the readers experience will be affected either way by removing two links. I believe they are "particularly relevant to the topic of the article." Woody (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, wouldn't it make more sense to link to British Empire? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because it is talking about United Kingdom in the geographical sense, or more accurately, the British Isles. (which I have now switched to in the article.) (Original Sentence="the Central Powers attempted to break that blockade and establish an effective blockade of the United Kingdom and France with U-boats and raiders.") Woody (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but generally speaking under the OVERLINK guideline, its not favored to link to common known countries. Adding a link doesn't add anything to the reader's knowledge since you are linking to the country itself overall and not the specific point in time the country was involved in the war(s).-- T ru  c o   503 18:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the general principle and usually adhere to it, but in this case it is not about linking to a specific point in time (if it were you could pipe Military history of X during World War links, though it might be on the wrong side of WP:EGG) In this case it is about the geographical entities which haven't changed for a while. Given there is only one link remaining, France, I don't see it as a huge problem. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps by analogy with the other links we ought actually to link tot he relevant French political entity, French Third Republic? David Underdown (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So done, Woody (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o   503 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the general references, I'm wondering if "Pan books" and "Midas books" should have "books" capitalized (picky stuff!)
 * More pickiness: Ref 14, you have the publisher as "Australian War Memorial", but ref 15 has it as "The Australian War Memorial". Be consistent.
 * http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC817715 is an encyclopedia, and should be italicized if I'm not mistaken. Also, I'm wary of its being used as a source for that specific statistic. Whenever possible, we should strive to use reliable secondary sources; tertiary sources should generally be used only for broad, summary-type statements.
 * Ref 17, the Oxford Times should be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done all bar the AIF one. It is only known today as the 1st AIF as there was a 2nd AIF raised for the Second World War. At the time it was known as the AIF so the battalions all raised as AIF units, not 1st AIF units. As all of the British regiments are listed using their 1918 titles, I think the same should occur for the AIF.
 * Thanks for the review, regards. Woody (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Any comment on the idea of sourcing "in the face of the enemy"? In may view it's such a commonplace, it could be sourced from any book on the VC that it doesn't really seem necessary, in fact, I'd say it's not really intended as a quote, but to show that in this context it's rather akin to a term of art.  David Underdown (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, didn't do that one as well, though my opinions mirror yours David. It is extremely commonplace in my mind akin to "Elizabeth is the rightful Queen of England". Woody (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree; it's not material that is "likely to be challenged". Striking. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it is. ;) Many thanks for your review. Woody (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Support Woody, looks pretty comprehensive, but I think that if you're going to give a potted account of the war, you need to relate more of the points back to the decoration in question, otherwise it doesn't tell me anything I couldn't find in the dedicated WWI article. You relate things back to the VC with the Somme and Jutland, for instance, so why not the same with each of the Dominion contributions you mention? Also since we're mentioning the naval war, why not also the air war? After a sentence beginning "The war was not just fought on land...", I fully expected to hear about the more recent innovation of aerial warfare - especially since there were air VCs as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. As you can imagine it is very hard to distill down information to this level given the huge wealth of information that could be included. How do these edits look? I have tried to expand on your points. I don't think it is this lists job to talk about the technological advances in too much detail, that is what the Aviation in World War I link I have just added is there to do. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, no need to go into too much detail, more that what detail we have should bring us back to the point of the article, which is the VC winners. I think your new edit above does that just fine - more than satisfied that my comments had been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 FLC 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.