Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross/archive1

List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take this list to FLC in the near future. I would particularly like to know what further information other editors feel should be included in the lead to make the introduction of the subject complete. Other comments on general FLC-type issues would also be appreciated.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: As the original author of the article I welcome someone trying to get it up to FLC. I had to work pretty hard to get it to B, (adding in the London Gazette citations took quite while to locate and then link) so I got tired and moved on. Anyway, one suggestion I have is that perhaps an image of the recipients could be added to the table. I've seen this done before with some of the Medal of Honor and Knights/Iron Cross lists. Many of the Gurkha recipient articles have images already, and others could be sourced from the IWM, I think. Just a suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion I have is to try to get rid of those red links, as they cut down on visual appeal of the article. I don't know whether its a requirement or not, but if you could create some stubs or find appropriate pipes that made them blue it wouldn't draw the eye off the content so much. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment on the Military history project talk page, directing any interested parties to the peer review, so hopefully some more comments will come soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you! I didn't realize you were still interested in the article (I checked the history and there hadn't been any edits for quite a while), so I would love any help you are willing to give on this - I'm not trying to steal your thunder or anything :) The photos sound like a good idea, I'll work on adding those, and fixing the red links is also something that needs to be done, although there are only a few of them and they probably won't take away from the FLC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken another look at these two issues, and upon further review I've changed my answers a bit. On the images, none of the other VC featured lists have images, and I think it would be a good idea to keep them consistent. I've tried to find information to create some of the red links, but I honestly haven't been able to find even enough to create stubs. These same red links are present in other FLs, so I don't think they would be a big deal on this nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would recommend that you have a good look at the other Victoria Cross related lists that User:Woody has raised to FL level, and see if you can extract some ideas from them. Also, it might be a good idea to contact Woody and see if he would comment on the article as he is a great source for knowledge and experience on lists in general, but especially on those pertaining to the Victoria Cross. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at some of the VC FLs that Woody has written, and can't seen anything major that this article leaves out, although I'm wondering if it might not be best to combined the lead and the first section. I've dropped a note to Woody, though, asking him to comment here on the issues raised (photos, completeness, article naming), so hopefully he'll stop by! Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Would it not be more appropriate to name this article "List of Brigade of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross", given that several of the recipients are not actually Gurkhas but served with the regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see your point. Possibly, but I'd like to see what others have to say on the subject, especially AustralianRupert. Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this myself. I can see where you're coming from as the terminology here is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure that even then the term would be correct, as I don't believe that the Brigade of Gurkhas existed until after the Second World War (I might be wrong, not sure on this point). If I'm correct, however, then it would really only be a list of one, as there has been only one post Second World War Gurkha VC. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point, although the lede section might need to clarify that in this list then, as it currently implies the Brigade of Gurkas has been around since 1815. I do really think the name needs to be better worded though.  The link to Gurka tells the reader that a Gurka is someone of Nepalese or Northern Indian descent, and that apparently comes from the International Journal of Human Genetics.  A fair portion of the men in this list aren't, and while they have every right to be there, I'd have thought calling the list "Gurka recipients" would be pretty misleading.  to about List of Gurkha Regiment recipients of the Victoria Cross? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or List of Gurka regiments recipients of the Victoria Cross to avoid suggesting a particular regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Hmm, I appear to have walked into a minefield in naming this article in the first instance. As a combat engineer, I'm frankly quite embarrased! ;-) Anyway, I will have to do an IMAP on this one and get back to you. (Only sort of joking, as I will have to have a think about this). I do agree with your point about the name as it is confusing, but I'm just not sure of the correct solution just yet. Two up, one back is the template solution, of course, but I'm not sure it applies here...;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Why not just take out all the non Gurkhas, all the others are included in the other lists and the Gurkhas are also included in the Indian Army list. I would also then suggest the list is moved to the nationality area in the template. Also the entrys for Allmand and Pun needs to be changed to 6th Gurkha Rifles they were not names Queen Elizabeths at the time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Gurkha is actually a nationality is it? Also, to my mind, duplicating recipients in two different nationality lists seems a bigger problem (see this chat).  I prefer the armed force categories personally, and I think serving with a Gurkha regiment would make one eligible to be in this list, but the title should reflect the contents. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the minefield had more depth than I realised...I'm with Ranger Steve on this one, but of course if concensus is against it I'll go with that. Any list I've seen of "Gurkha" VC recipients has included the British/Indian Army Officers attached to the various Gurkha regiments. I compiled this list based on those in Parker and on the British Army website that listed Gurkha VCs. In this case the term Gurkha is being used not as a nationality but as a branch of service descriptor. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know about a minefield as such, I prefer to think of us as sweeping for leftover mines! Anyway, I guess what concerns me about the title is that it currently uses a racial distinguisher (Gurkha) to describe a 'military unit' defined list.  The situation would probably be worse if we used a racial factor to define a nationality defined list! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Title: I agree with the majority above, this list should go down the "unit" route so List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients would probably be best. Perhaps a RM should be opened and we can get more opinions?

List: In terms of the actual list, I think it looks very good.
 * To keep it consistent with the others, you don't really need the "Eligibility" header, it can just merge into the lead and then align the Gurkhas image to the left.
 * The image should be probably be changed to the one without the medal bar. No Gurkha has been awarded the VC and bar. (We only recently amended the image so we probably need to do it across a number of articles. ✅
 * I fixed the sorting for you.
 * Other than that, as I said above, it all looks very good and once the title is sorted I would take it to FLC. Best regards, Woody (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments (and thanks to everyone else too!). I would also support a change to "List of Brigade of Gurkhas...", as this seems like the best descriptor for the contents of the list. I will work on the formatting and image changes that have been listed above my multiple editors soon, probably starting tonight. Thanks again. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * List of Brigade of Gurkhas would be my first choice, if it is accurate for the length of time. On that note, this external link from the Brigade of Gurkhas page does make it seem ok, but I bow to anyone with more expert knowledge! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although not married to the idea as per my above comment, I could live with it being moved to List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients. I've made a couple of tweaks as per the above comments (i.e. designation of the 6th Gurkhas and the image). — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Off the topic of the title, in the prose perhaps just a line separating the first award to a native from the first award to a non native? Just a thought. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Title - It seems that a consensus is developing above to move the list to List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross". I'm going to wait 24 hours or so to see if any major dissenters pop up, and then move the article. Please let me know if this is something I shouldn't do! Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to this move. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Move complete. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other comments that need to be resolved before the article goes to FLC? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there don't seem to be any further comments, I am going to close this peer review, read through the list one more time, and then nominate for FLC. Thanks everyone for your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)