Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Victoria Cross for Australia

Victoria Cross for Australia
This article is part of a series of articles relating to the Victoria Cross. It is currently in the process of being nominated for WP:FT, but this is on hold to see if any other articles can reach FA. I am asking for opinions on what this article needs to reach A-Class or FA status. Thanks in advance. Woodym555 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Very nice, overall; a few minor points: Keep up the good work; it'll be great to see this turn into the first military history FT. Kirill 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The citations in the lead seem to be redundant with those given in the relevant sections of the body; I would suggest omitting them unless there's some reason to believe those statements will be particularly controversial.
 * I'd recommend blockquote formatting over cquote.
 * The "Similar decorations" section is just crying out to be converted into a template; it's something that would be replicated across dozens of articles, one for each country that has a comparable award.
 * The "See also" section should be eliminated, if possible; most of these items are (or can easily be) linked elsewhere in the article.
 * Sorry about the large gap between addressing your comments, i have been on holiday IRL. Thanks for your comments, i hope to implement the general suggestions such as similar decorations, see also across the other articles. I have implemented all of your suggestions and i was wondering whether the template is adequate?
 * Looks pretty good. I've converted it to use the new standard base template we've developed.  It may be better, perhaps, to place the country names after the award names in parentheses, rather than having commas everywhere; but that may be just a personal preference. Kirill 18:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not just personal preference, i tried commas, colons, semi-colons and dashes but neglected parentheses. I have put these in now and it does look better. I will start adding the template into the constituent articles. Woodym555 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackyd101
As Kirill pointed out above, a nice article. At the moment it is probably too short and too focused on the VC as a concept rather than specifically the Victoria Cross of Asutralia to gain FA status, I suggest some more information focused on the award itself, for example what did people think of the seperation of the VCA from the VC? Veteran groups? Media response? Also, does the original VC Royal Warrant still apply to this award or were changes made? Am I right in infering that the post-nominal letters have not changed? Just a few ideas. There are also a few stylistic points:
 * Having an image of the Victoria Cross twice in the same article and no other images strikes me as a little redundant, even if they are different images. Are they any other images which could be used to add variety - perhaps the Australian War Memorial when you discuss its collection of VCs?
 * The VC navigation box should probably go right at the bottom of the article, it seems to divide the page where it is (although this may just be my interpretation).
 * As Kirill noted above, the similar decorations should be made into a nevigation box. In any case, as it stands it is too long and other than the different VC awards is verging on a little irrelevant where it is. I'd suggest either creting the box or removing the list, especially those awards outside the Commonwealth.
 * As above; references not needed in the lead, blockquote over cquote and goodbye to the see also section.

In conlusion its a nice Good Article, but it is too short to make FA at the moment. It also suffers from problems relating to relevance, only the last paragraph actually deals with the uniquely Australian award. I'm aware that the rest of the information is pertinent but more is needed on what makes the award Australian. Good work and all the best.--Jackyd101 11:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument on shortness is always a divisive one. Criterion 1b of the WP:FACR states that the article must be comprehensive. The length of the article does not preclude it from FA status. I agree though that the Australian sections need some expanding and i will try to do that in the coming days. I have put in two more pictures, one of sevastopol and one of the AWM. I have moved the nav boxes to the bottom of the page. For your other comments see my reply to Kirill. Thankyou for taking the time to review the article. Woodym555 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)