Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Zulu War 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:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008.

List of Zulu War 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 Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients. The naming of the list could be up for discussion as with the Mutiny list. I believe that Zulu War is correct for this list, not Anglo-Zulu War as it is a list about British people within this conflict, and the British call this the Zulu War. That said, I am very open to changing it if it is specifically requested with a convincing rationale. So, here we go again, thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments— The prose needs copy-editing. Here are issues in the first half; please get someone to scrutinise the second half.
 * Woody, I wonder whether the dates column could be widened at the expense of the units column, to minimise wrapping? Pity the squash is for one small image in the table section, but I can see why you've placed it there.
 * Only some C'th countries? Which ones were/are excluded, as a matter of interest?
 * "Orders"—upper-case there, but not for the other terms?
 * Comma would be nice after "1857", and then "when" might be more natural, juxtaposed with the year rather than the location.
 * Comma after "Isadlwana"? The longer a sentence, the more likely such semi-optional commas are used.
 * Remove "successfully". "It" refers to the garrison or "This action"? Tony   (talk)  08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the image now, I had no squashing on my browser, indeed quite the opposite, hadn't bothered to check at low-res. Is it ok now? In terms of Commonwealth countries, at the time it was open to Commonwealth soldiers serving with the British, but not to Commonwealth serving on their own. This was changed eventually and recently three countries have created their own medals. See Victoria Cross and Victoria Cross for detailed information: I think that is far too detailed to go into here. Tony, if you are going to use the script on this, please remember it is a sorting table. What is top once, won't be for the others. Now, to be honest, the place column looks stupid, either link them all or none at all. Personally, I prefer all. I will look around for another ce. Woody (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Woody, I have a large high-res monitor. Safari windows normally open over less than half the screen (unless you change the size, which it will subsequently repeat for new windows). The inner text display window is 21 × 29 cm. I'm sure other set-ups are similar. I'm sorry to see the small image go, although I guess it's readily recoverable in sibling lists and articles. But the problem is still there: the relationship between those two columns needs to be forced so that the white space wasted in one can pay for no or little date wrapping in the other. How is this done, so I can specify next time (column-width management is quite a common problem in FLCs)? Why not simply specify the wording you provide above C'th etc in a footnote. The "some" was a little mysterious! The sorting table is fine, isn't it? The script was fixed in that respect quite a while ago. Tony   (talk)  11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) PS OK, I agree about the some vs all in a table, and will avoid that function in FLCs from now on.  Tony   (talk)  11:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "highlighted" refers to everybody pretty much: overegged by the military/government/press/country to cover up the failure at Isandwlana. Countries tend to gloss over their failures and glorify their victories. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Something needs to be specified or cited. Tony   (talk)  12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have pulled the sentence altogether and added in a cited quote that is totally unambiguous. That do it? Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Looks nicer if you put the general references in alphabetical order by author.
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The other two don't have authors, they have publishers, so I have used that for authors. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Well constructed list that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - my few concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 24 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.