Talk:Victoria Cross for Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victoria Cross for Australia article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals This article is part of WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals, a collaborative effort to improve, organise, and standardise Wikipedia's coverage of national honours systems. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page Military history WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force WikiProject Australia / Military      (Rated GA-Class) Portal Victoria Cross for Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Victoria Cross for Australia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	Victoria Cross for Australia is part of the "Victoria Cross" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 7, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed August 2, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 5, 2007 Featured topic candidate Promoted November 26, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 30, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

Contents 1 Embedded list 2 Good article nomination on hold 3 Re-assessment 4 GA Sweeps

[edit] Embedded list

I reverted the changes of PalawanOz [1] because i think it breaches the Wikipedia:Embedded list guideline. Where possible the article should consist of prose and the description did not have to be a list. I agree with the images and the unecessary data in the infobox, i did not revert them. I only reverted the formatting of the description section. In Victoria Cross which is currently a GA, the description is in prose format and this is deemed as acceptable. In the interests of conformity between articles i believe this change is correct. Woodym555 16:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I had changed it to be a bulleted list to fit in with every other medal entry that I had created/edited over the last few months. Broadly, I had broken the Description section into 4 areas with bullets: the Obverse, the Reverse, the Suspender bar (if distinctive enough) and the Ribbon. eg: Star of Gallantry, Medal for Gallantry and pretty much every medal linked to the Australian Honours Order of Precedence and New Zealand Honours Order of Precedence. Whilst I acknowledge it was not a 'prose' style, I like to think it did make the articles more readable (in list style).PalawanOz 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your edit and i did see the formatting on those articles before i reverted it on here. The Wikipedia:Embedded list is only a guideline but i think it is a successful one. There is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to consider, of course, but i do think the guideline works well within this article. To do something wrong simply because we have done so in the past is no excuse for doing it wrong in the future. I am not saying that you have done anything wrong, just that it goes against guidelines that are there for a reason. I am in no way saying that all the other articles should be changed just that in my opinion this article does flow better with continuous prose. The group of articles that this is linked to is the Victoria Cross topic as well as the other topics. If the article was ever put up for GA or FA which i do intend to do then i am sure that the review would come back and i think that consensus would be to have it in prose. Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy is a key philosophy of Wikipedia and when this article comes up for GA i am sure that we will find consensus. Woodym555 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Lead doesn't seem to completely summarise the article, consider rewrite of it while it's on hold (capturing everything else currently in the article)

• • I have rewritten it, removing some things not needed whilst adding in annuity info. I think everything else is covered by it.

2. Factually accurate?: Y - Well done on this

3. Broad in coverage?: Y

4. Neutral point of view?: Y

5. Article stability? Y

6. Images?: What's the fair use situation with the first image? I think it needs a WP:FURG. Another image would be nice if possible.

• • I have added another image, as in the NZ article. With regards to the first image, it is Crown Copyright and can be used as long as it is not changed. It is used on the VC article.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy _U^CP 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll promote it now. Well done! Giggy _U^CP 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-assessment

This article from the west Australian indicated that a tribunal is being created to reassess previous recommendations that were declined. Gnangarra 03:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently very comfortably meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a great article since some kind soul has mentioned my name in the second last line. However, there are too many non Australian references and footnotes. Much is duplicated from the Victoria Cross entry whereas the emphasis should be on the similarities and differences of the Australian award with the Victoria Cross. I have collected some Australian references and in the next couple of weeks will revamp the entry. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that the nationality of the references really matters, and since the medal is yet to be awarded, there does seem to be a natural limit on the purely Australian history in any case, but I look forward to seeign your changes. David Underdown (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing missing as far as I am concerned is the history of the award. When was it first mentioned, when was it first cited, when did it go before Parliament? That is what is missing. The nationality of the references is irrelavent though I do look forward to seeing your changes. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I work best with deadlines so I gave myself a public deadline. Rather than too many non Australian references it would have been better expressed as missing Australian references including three editions of They dared mightily although the 2005 edition was renamed Victoria Cross: Australia's finest and the battle they fought. The online edition of the Australian Dictionary of Biography contains VC biographies of deceased recipients. As to references I will quote from the published gazette that promulgated the award. I was thinking of Belated awards to replace the heading Retrospective awards since all awards are retrospective.Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)