Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of George Cross recipients


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * No consensus to promote at this time: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

List of George Cross recipients

 * Nominator(s):  iComputer  SaysNo 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that it meets the A-Class criteria. I have worked on this for a couple of weeks, as the basic framework was already in place, and I believe that I have done the necessary improvements to make this an A-Class list. I would also particularly like it to be considered in light of a Featured List application in the near future.  iComputer  SaysNo 03:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by MisterBee1966
 * Table could do with column and rowscopes, see MOS:DTT for more info
 *  iComputer  SaysNo 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  iComputer  SaysNo 22:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought every entry has to be cited?
 * I looked at Lists of Victoria Cross recipients which does not reference every recipient and took that as my reasoning for not - especially as that is a FL. I also considered that there was a link to each recipient anyway. I can't help but think I would be overloading the page adding a reference for each person.  iComputer  SaysNo 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While I understand your reasoning and I see the point of overloading the reviewers of my most recent lists have ruled otherwise. See i.e. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) or List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C). The reviewers had mandated that every item be referenced. The request either applies for every list or none. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * so please bear with me. I am trying to use London Gazette references so that it is from the only true source  iComputer  SaysNo 23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not having this finished yet. I have been very busy with work and uni so have not finished it yet  iComputer  SaysNo 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "This along with a * indicates that the George Cross was awarded posthumously" suggest "This along with a * (asterisk) indicates that the George Cross was awarded posthumously"
 * ✅  iComputer  SaysNo 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you add some statistics?
 * What did you have in mind? I already had the oldest/youngest. Do you mean mean stats about how many UK, India, etc? How many male/female etc?  iComputer  SaysNo 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that would work for me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there images of the people available?
 * Similar to my concerns about referencing each recipient, would an image for each be overloading the page beyond what it needs? I think that providing a link is adequate or otherwise risk making the page too large.  iComputer  SaysNo 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  iComputer  SaysNo 22:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments. I'm gad MisterBee is reviewing this—he's our expert on lists of award recipients. Overall, this looks like a good list and it shouldn't take too much to get it up to A-class/FL standards. I'll just offer a few comments from my own experience: — HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bolded links are frowned upon, I believe, and I think the convention is only to use bold when the opening exactly matches the title
 * Agreed. Removed  iComputer  SaysNo 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is the highest civil decoration of the Commonwealth of Nations implies that it's a civilian-only award, which obviously isn't the case
 * I have slightly reworded this, but I have kept the essence of the decoration, which is that it was designed to be used to celebrate gallantry by civilians, and only be used for military personnel where no military decoration or medal was appropriate.  iComputer  SaysNo 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto the civilian counterpart of the Victoria Cross
 * As per above  iComputer  SaysNo 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The award was designed primarily for civilians, but members of the military are eligible if there is no military award that would normally be granted seems to repeat the previous sentence
 * Deleted the sentence and rewritten the lead  iComputer  SaysNo 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The rest of the lead is excellent as far as it goes, but I would like to see it fleshed out. You mentioned that you based this list on the less of VC recipients; the leads in those lists are quite a bit bulkier than this one. It doesn't need to be huge, but there's more you can say. You might want to look at List of field marshals of the British Army for inspiration (disclaimer: that's one of mine!).
 * Since you have text between the section heading and the start of the table, I think you need a caption for the table; the field marshals list has one, so you might wan to pinch the formatting from there
 * The entries in the "nationality" column are all countries, not nationalities
 * I would personally like to see a reference for each entry; both because the London Gazette citations are interesting and because I've been told in the past that one citation per entry is pretty much what's expected. As it is, it's not clear what many of the entries are sourced to because your inline citations are sporadic.
 * I am slowly filling in citations, but due to work and uni this is taking me some time. I am using a London GAzette reference for every name (used in the rank/role, organisation, and date gazetted unless the LG does not give some information - usually the organisation)  iComputer  SaysNo 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have expected to have seen Ashcroft in the general references list—he's well respected for his writings about the VC and GC, and it's a much more recent publication than those you currently cite
 * All your non-London Gazette specific references need more information; I suggest using the cite web and cite news templates for consistent formatting
 * Your general references are also inconsistently formatted: you should provide place of publication for all or none of them
 * Added place for publication  iComputer  SaysNo 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think those external links add much?
 * I have limited it to two links now - both of which list some of the GC recipients in countries other that the UK  iComputer  SaysNo 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments That's it for now. A pretty solid article! I may have some more comments later. --Errant (chat!) 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This along with an * (asterisk) indicates that the George Cross was awarded posthumously.; this reads awkwardly, and is so low contrast on my screen the marked entries are hard to spot. I'd suggest either shading the whole row or, my preference, simply add an extra column to note posthumous awards (won't oppose over this - but just a general remark).
 * Again, not something I would oppose over as A-Class, but the introduction to the table reads awkwardly. I would be inclined to merge the current few sentences together into one paragraph and then move the content of the "Statistics" section (which is of real interest so deserves more prominent placement) to be start the introduction (and scrap the statistics heading).
 * I see none of the information in Group awards summarised in the lead, per WP:LEAD.
 * I know the content is brain dead obvious to a certain extent, but shouldn't the prose of Statistics section have some sourcing?
 * has been awarded the George Cross collectively in perpetuity; I think the word order here is confusing. Maybe has been collectively awarded the George Cross in perpetuity
 * There has not been a bar (a second award) awarded to date.; only a minor nitpick, but the two awards clash for me here. I think you could pad out this sentence a little to make clearer what you are saying :)
 * World War II could be linked. Also, I believe convention in UK English articles is to use Second World War - but that's not a big issue (someone told me that once I think).

Co-ord comment: what is the status of this review? It has been open for nearly two months now (its been open 52 days) and there has been no edits to this review page for 10 days. Given that there currently appears to be some concern about the accuracy of the nationalities listed as well as total recipients/missing names (as per the comments on the talk page), and there are still parts of the article unreferenced (for instance the quote in the Group awards section "By God's help Malta will not weaken but will endure until victory is won"), I'm inclined to think that this review should be closed as "no consensus to promote at this time". Does anyone have an opinion on this either way? If it is closed, the nominator can work on the issues raised and resubmit whenever they feel it is ready to undergo another ACR. I will wait a couple of days to see what the response is, but propose closing it in 72 hours if there is no response. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Rupert. From what I gather, the nominator is in the process of overhauling the article to meet A-class standards and address the concerns of reviewers. Speaking as a reviewer, I'd be more than happy to give him all the time he needs, because I like ACR to be more supportive than the featured processes. But thinking with my coord hat on, it might be necessary to close this review and resume on a separate subpage when the nominator is finished. Your 72 hour window for others to comment seems reasonable. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I have closed this review now as there has been no response to the above post and the comment I left on the nominator's talk page. Additionally, there appear to be concerns on the article's talk page about scope (the number of recipients), and the accuracy of some of the content (the information on nationalities) which should be rectified before being renominated. Please feel free to renominate as soon as you feel you have covered off on the issues raised here and on the article's talk page. Good luck with developing this list further. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.