This sub-list of Victoria Cross recipients has gone through a recent peer review, which has hopefully readied it for FL candidature. User:AustralianRupert did much of the work on this article, including the difficult referencing and table work, and much of my contributions have been in the way of tweaking, slight expansions and alt text. AustralianRupert is on board with this nomination, per his statement at the peer review. I believe that this article meets the featured list criteria and look forward to everyone's comments. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just quickly passing through:
Check the "disambig links" in the toolbox
Did you consider having the "place of action" column sort in such a way that you end up having places in one country together. You might want to use hidden keys to achieve this. At the moment the column sorts strictly by alphabet, so "Ningthoukhong, Burma" is disconnected from "Pin Hmi Road Bridge, Burma". Also you should remove the full stops in that column.
Hidden keys added, full stops removed.
What does "Indian Armoured Corps attached 6th Gurkha Rifles" etc mean? Who was attached to whom?
Should all have been "attached to"; corrected. I hope this makes it more clear.
Not sure I understand since I am not familiar with military topics. Could you explain it shortly? I am a bit confused by the "Bengal Staff Corps" which is attached to both, the 1st and the 2nd King George V's Own Gurkha Rifles. If it makes sense you also might want to add sort keys to the "unit" column such that all "Gurkha Rifles", etc. are together when sorting.
Basically, in the beginning of the Gurkha divisions, native divisions weren't considered able to provide their own officers, and so special corps were created to provide British officers for native divisions, and these special corps were "attached to" the native divisions. One special corps could provide offciers for several native ones? Does this explain it better? I have added sort keys to the unit columns so that all of the 1st Gurkhas display together, all of the 2nd, etc. Is this what you wanted?
Thanks for the explanation. If it is not obvious, maybe you could add something like it to the lead section. I'd suggest not to add sortkeys "01", "02",... but "Royal Gurkha Rifles", "Gurkha Rifles",... or possibly with a suffix: "Royal Gurkha Rifles 05", "Gurkha Rifles 05", "Gurkha Rifles 06",... But you can probably decide better what the most natural sorting would be.bamse (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find to add to the lead section on this. And now I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're looking for with the sort key. How about this...why don't you give me a general example of what you want the table to look like after sorting, so I know the wished-for end result, and then I'll see what I can do to get it to look that way? :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to have after sorting: a block of "Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is sorted by number, 1st, 2nd,...), then a block of "... Own Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is ordered by the name of the king/prince queen), followed by a block of "Royal Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is sorted like the Gurkha Rifles block above by nmuber). If it was a sport event, your sorting looks like: "1st (=gold) jumping, 1st running, 1st swimming,...,2nd (=silver) jumping, 2nd running, 2nd swimming, ... , 3rd (=bronze) jumping, 3rd running, 3rd swimming,..." My suggestion is to sort like: 1st jumping, 2nd jumping, 3rd jumping,..., 1st running, 2nd running, 3rd running,..., 1st swimming, 2nd swimming, 3rd swimming,...". As I wrote above, I am not sure which of the two ways of sorting is more natural, so I leave it up to you to decide. bamse (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this is that what is between the number (i.e. 1st) and the "Gurkha rifles" is basically incidental, as is the name of the staff corps being attached to it. These are just names picked up from royal sponsors at various points. So, I believe the current sorting structure is the most natural, as it lists all of the 1st Gurkha rifles together, all of the 2nd, etc. Hope this makes sense. I've added a note explaining (I hope) the staff corps thing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Responses interspersed above; thank you for your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. bamse (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for taking a bit longer to reply this time. I hope I have provided a satisfactory answer to your question above... Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Almost, replied with two suggestions which you may or may not implement. bamse (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Replies interspersed above - thanks for the comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry not to have posted these observations during the peer review, but I think it's only where I've not looked at the article in a while that has allowed me to spot these things! Anyway, here goes:
It might be a browser thing, but the name column seems to be pretty narrow in the main list (about the same width as the year column). Is there any way the name of the recipient (which I would consider to be the most important facet) can be a little more prominent?
The table is an automated table, and so the widths are created automatically. However, I'm not that knowledgable about tables, and so there may be some way to change the width settings that I don't know about. If there is, I would be happy to make the names section wider. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In the main prose, it occurs to me that all the info is there, but re-reading it I wonder about the order some of it is displayed in. For instance, the first para talks about the VC, then jumps into the subject of the Gurkha regiment by indicating the number of times they have recieved it. As I read it I thought to myself it might read better if it first said how many times the VC has been awarded, before tackling the Gurkha regiment in the following para. Likewise, the first para menntions the first awards to British officers and then native Gurkhas, but then in the 3rd para the major reason for the difference in awards chronology is mentioned. There's nothing especially wrong with it, it's just a bit dislocated. It's kind of tricky to explain it, and it's actually quicker for me to just demo what I'm thinking of, so I've done it below. This is just a rough idea of what I'm thinking - I'm not attempting to rewrite anything Dana boomer or Australian Rupert have done, just re-order it slightly. I have changed a few tenses and sentence structures to make it all fit, and inevitably some refs may be in the wrong place! Anyway:
The British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas, a group of units composed of Nepalese soldiers, has been a part of the Army since 1815. When raised it originally focused on conflicts in the Far East, but the transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese hands necessitated that the brigade move its base to the UK. A battalion is still maintained in Brunei and as of 2009, units serve in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans.
Since the VC was introduced it has been awarded to Gurkhas or British officers serving with Gurkha regiments 26 times. The first award was made in 1858 to a British officer of the Gurkhas during the campaigns that followed the Indian Rebellion of 1857, while the first award to a native Gurkha was in 1915 during the First World War. When the Victoria Cross was initially established, Gurkhas, along with all other native troops of the British East India Company Army or the British Indian Army, were not eligible for it and as such up until 1911 all of the Gurkha recipients of the award were British officers who were attached to Gurkha regiments. Until that time the highest award that Gurkhas were eligible for was the Indian Order of Merit. Since 1911 however, of the 16 VCs awarded to men serving with Gurkha regiments, 13 have been bestowed upon native Gurkhas. The most recent award was made in 1965, during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.
In 1950, when India became a republic, Gurkhas serving in the Gurkha regiments of the Indian Army lost their eligibility for the Victoria Cross and they are now covered under the separate Indian honours system. Under this system the Param Vir Chakra (PVC), which is India's highest military decoration for valour, is considered to be equivalent to the Victoria Cross. As such only those serving in the Gurkha units of the British Army remain eligible for the Victoria Cross.
Just an idea. Merry Christmas, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added your proposed rewording to the lead, as I agree that the structure is more readable. Thanks for the help! I filled in the number of times it had been reworded and referenced that, as well as making a slight addition of the information that the Gurkha regiments are some of the most heavily decorated - a little fact that I found while digging for a medal total reference. Please let me know if you have any more comments - thanks for your review! Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
That is an interesting fact - definitely worthy of inclusion. Hope you don't mind my quick c/e - I think the Navy and Air Force may take issue with Historynet's use of the term 'soldier'! Obviously I think the page could still be improved with a wider space for the recipients names, but I for one can't even begin to see how you would do it. Still, in the hope it happens I'm more than happy to lend my Support. Nice work by you and AustralianRupert. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Quick comment – Reference 6 has a different style of date formatting than the others. This should be made consistent throughout; changing that one reference is the easiest way to do it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the oversight on my part; I thought I had checked all the dates. Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Support It follows the normal formula, even builds on it in some places. I have forced the column width for the name to try and make it look a bit better. I have also moved the image up to avoid the whitespace issue though the contents box looks out of place now. Perhaps hide it? Either way, it it meets the FL criteria in my opinion. Good work, regards, Woody (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and the formatting tweaks. Much appreciated! Do you mean hide the image or hide the TOC? Dana boomer (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I meant hide the TOC, or you could remove the gurkha image, or remove the VC image, move things around, but as it stands there isn't enough writing to fit all 3 things in comfortably, at least on my screen. Woody (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've hidden the TOC, which has reduced the white space considerably. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks much better without the table, which only really listed the refs and such anyway! I've narrowed the space between the text and the next title though, it looked a bit wide on my computer, but if it needs undoing I don't mind. Nice job on the column widths Woody! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
SupportComments – nice list, well cited and illustrated, but a few things before I can support:
"many Commonwealth nations it is considered to be the highest award" - the use of "considered" bugs me, as the award is the highest decoration for valour in these nations, and is not just viewed as such for any random reason.
The cite of For Valour: Britain's Victoria Cross Winners is out dated and incorrect. The cited figure states 1,351 VCs have been awarded, when 1,353 is the current correct figure. The article was made in 1999, and two VCs have been awarded since then (Johnson Beharry  and Bryan Budd ). I have several books on the VC, but they are either Australian-centric or slightly outdated and do not include Budd, so I don't think I can help you in a book cite, but there should be several reliable sources on the internet that have the correct figure.
"British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas, a group of units composed of Nepalese soldiers" - the phrase "composed of Nepalese soldiers" implies that the unit(s) were completely make up of Nepalese soldiers, but weren't the brigade's officers predominantly British soldiers?
In the section where it is discussing the first and last awards of the VC to members of the brigade, I think it would be best if the actual person was mentioned as just the basic discription leaves it a little vague and one then has to look through the table in an attempt to spot the person.