Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of field marshals of the British Army/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 The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012.

List of field marshals of the British Army

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This list has become something of a labour of love. It's something that, for over a year, I've picked up, dropped, picked up, dropped again, and picked up again, but now I think it's finally ready for recognition as a featured list. It's been through two A-Class reviews by the Military History Project, of which the second was successful. It has undergone some structural changes recently, and there has been fiddling to incorporate the two most recent promotions, but it is now stable. The article provides a fascinating snapshot of he history of this highly coveted rank, and indeed of the British Army itself. My hope and aim is that even people with little interest in military ranks or military history will find this article to be a good read, and will find something interesting or amusing in it! Hat tips are due to (in no particular order), Jack Merridew, RexxS, Courcelles, Opera hat, and the MilHist A-Class reviewers. Thanks for reading. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from RexxS: A fascinating read. Congratulations on the most appropriate set of alt texts that I've seen on images for a long time. A couple of minor points:
 * I think the table would probably be improved by a caption (something as simple as 'Field marshals of the British Army', perhaps?). Its distance from the nearest navigable text (the section heading) indicates that a caption would be a convenience for anyone using a screen reader such as JAWS, since they could jump directly to the table on subsequent visits. Also, a caption makes the table a complete entity in itself, and therefore more useful to our re-users.
 * You've already sold me on the value of a caption. Could you explain how I add one? You've probably told me before and I'm just being thick. --HJM
 * In the prose of the first paragraph of the section List of field marshals there are multiple occurrences of a count of the number of field marshals. You have followed the general guidance in WP:NUMERAL that 0-9 are words and 10+ rendered as numerals, as well as remembering not to start a sentence with a numeral. However, the switching around does jar with me a bit and contravenes the second common exception in that guidance: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." It's not crucial, but have a think about the 'comparable quantities' and see if you can find room for improvement.
 * That seems eminently sensible now you raise it. Given the number of dates as figures, it's probably best to switch all the numbers of field marshals to figures. --HJM
 * In any case, neither of these issues should be construed as making the article unsuitable to be considered as one of Wikipedia's best lists. Excellent work! --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review (although I haven't done a lot here). No objection to changing "eight" to "8"; does that work for you, RexxS? This is one of those problems where no one approach seems to make everyone happy all the time; all we can do is respond individually. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This wikitext:  Produces:

HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jack beat me to it, but I'll know for next time! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency ... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope ... Our *four*... no ... - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rambling Man, thanks for having a look. As a MilHist coordinator, I apologise if some members of the project have brought it into disrepute at FLC—I can only promise you that I wasn't aware of it, and if I had been, I would have had something to say to those responsible. As for fear of reprisals, I know you respect Rexx, so you can ask him—he'll tell you I'm harmless. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (not if you're a bottle of scotch;) Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I was over this in detail some months ago and the table semantics, citation mechanism, and notes system are all solid. I trust that the ACR sorted issues of comprehensiveness, and so lend my support to this. Ya do need to address the dead Lethbridge (Britain at War) link. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very much obliged. I'll see what I can do about that link; in the meantime, I've added another source that backs up the statement. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (The last edit will need a few days to show up, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –
 * First two words of the List of field marshals section title could easily be removed, and I personally like it better when section titles don't have them. It's obvious to the reader that it's a list, after all.
 * They could, but I prefer it how it is. I think it makes clear that what follows is the list of field marshals and information about the list entries, and not just more information about field marshals in general or the rank itself. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't think Earl Roberts' first name needs to be used a second time in this section.
 * It's actually his title, but you're right—we don't need it twice. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, there is a dead link tag for the Britain at War Magazine article, and I'd be reluctant to promote a list with a tag in it. You could try citing an offline version of the article, which won't have this issue, or you can see if the Internet Archive has a copy. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the problematic link has been removed. Any response to the couple of other things I pointed out? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 16:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Support. After stumbling upon the list I was wondering why it wasn't featured, then I saw it was up as a candidate. I notice that the Lethbridge, JP. "From Private to Field Marshal" reference is a dead link - can you find this on an archive site? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I think that the FL criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.