Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients


 * 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 User:The Rambling Man 17:02, 5 September 2008.

List of Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients
Hello, another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients. A couple of points that I will tackle beforehand: The title: I realise this may be a bone of contention. I notice from the logs that this has been moved before. I believe that Indian Mutiny is correct for this list as it is a list about British people within this conflict, and the British called this the Indian Mutiny. That said, I am very open to changing it if it is specifically requested with a convincing rationale. ImagesIn previous FLCs there have been requests for more images along the side of the list. If images were placed on some of the more cramped VC articles, then they would get very cramped at lower resolutions. When I go down in resolution, there is simply no room to put them in other articles. With this article, I don't get that problem, but, it would create an inconsistency within the topic, and pictures of recipients are limited. Woody (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Everything looks good, but in regards to your comment about the title, why not say that the British called it this in the parenthesised part of "during the Indian rebellion of 1857 (also known as Indian Mutiny)."? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DO you mean having the title as "...Indian rebellion of 1857..." and including Indian Mutiny in parenthesis? A reversal of the current situation? Why would we, anybody looking for VC recipients would be looking for it Indian Mutiny recipients, this is the common name for this from a British perspective. Or, have I misunderstood you? Woody (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I meant something else, but it has been addressed already. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe the campaign was called theIndian Mutiny Campaign so the title would be correct, one point I wondered about, is it worth putting the dates of the Mutiny into the article. (There is the link to the page but the dates could also be included) Was the award of 182 VC's unique ? it seems a lot for a short period of time. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the lead goes into the dates in detail; is there more that can be added to that? In terms of numbers by campaign, the First World War holds the record for the largest number: 627 in 4 years. The Indian Mutiny holds the record for the highest number in a day: "24 in the Second relief of Lucknow on 16 November 1857." I have added that into the article. Woody (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry must have missed the dates. Interesting about the highest number awarded in one day. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, any other issues with it? Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No other issues a very good article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "the Indian rebellion of 1857 (also known as Indian Mutiny)" and then "The Indian Mutiny (also known as India's First War of Independence, Revolt of 1857, or the Sepoy Mutiny)" while in agreement, seem in contention with each other in terms of the title of the list.
 * Shouldn't that r in rebellion be R?
 * "Indian Princely states " in the caption - this term isn't linked, nor is it expanded on in the article - what does it mean?
 * "reorganize" - BritEng seems most appropriate here so "reorganise".
 * But those are picky. It's a fine list.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put the Indian Mutiny before rebellion and capitalised Rebellion. I have linked List of Indian Princely States; basically India was split into hundreds of Princely States "ruled by semi-independent potentates." Fixed reorganise. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice article, excellent Lede, tables sort fine, no other concerns. Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 16:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, but I do have some comments:
 * For several entries, the dates are a little bit confusing. With Dighton Probyn, for example, is that range of dates (1857–1858), or is it a list of dates (like 1857, 1858)? There are several other entries—Charles Gough, especially—where there seems to be a list of dates, or ranges, even. Perhaps commas to separate listed dates (even though they're already on separate lines) and consolidating date ranges (to omit repeated years and months) might both help avoid any ambiguity.
 * Can the instances of cite web be updated to have unlinked dates to match the style in use in the table?
 * Otherwise it meets all of the criteria, and compares favorably with other FLs and other VC FLs. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made all the dates consistent including the refs, I have added in commas to all the multiple date recipeints: Probyn has a footnote which explains his unique dates. Thanks for the comments. Woody (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.