Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Italian orders of knighthood/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:27, 3 February 2010 [1].

Italian orders of knighthood

edit
Nominator(s): Chrisieboy (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because it gives a comprehensive account of the Italian orders of knighthood. Chrisieboy (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife

My initial reaction was to oppose, but I normally let a review run its course before making a final decision. While this is some very good work, I have multiple concerns. I'll deal with the technical, stylistic and more general prose-related things first, and when these are addressed I'll be happy to do a detailed review.

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk)
* One of the images is copyrighted, and I'm unsure if it falls into the fair use category. My gut reaction is that it doesn't, but if it does, a rationale needs to be provided.
  • It doesn't, because there's already a free-use image in the article. It doesn't significantly diminish the reader's understanding of the article by removing it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining. WFCforLife (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative text needs to be provided for the images.
  • Notes and references should be separated. See Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire for an example. Previously struck
  • A brief history lesson would help in my opinion; a short paragraph at the start of each of the Italian Republic and Kingdom of Italy sections should suffice.
    • As no response was given, I thought I should clarify for the closer that I haven't accidentally capped this. I'm happy with the progress here. WFCforLife (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references, ensure that the language is given (where it is not English), and that the language is correct. Previously struck
  • In the references, ensure that all dates are given in English. Also, the |accessdate= parameter should always be filled in for an online source, and date formats consistent.
Date formats are now consistent; access dates are given except for convenience links where publication dates are given instead. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "Below these are a number of other medals" mean? Is this a reference to the other medals in the Kingdom of Italy section? Or that there are medals below knighthoods? If it's the former, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead, and if it's the latter it could do with a bit of expansion.
Hopefully I've clarified this; that sentence now reads differently. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It reads differently, but the issue is the same. WFCforLife (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that better? Chrisieboy (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph (indeed the entire article) starts by saying that "there are currently five orders of knighthood", closely followed by "Below these are...". It's a nicely constructed sentence, but what it is saying? That the "Kingdom of Italy" awards are not knighthoods? That they were knighthoods, but are now lesser awards? That there are other awards, not mentioned in this list, which you have chosen to introduce before even explaining the contents of the list? WFCforLife (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is essentially saying that the orders of knighthood are at the top of the honours system. It is nothing to do with the Savoy orders. First, there are the five orders or knighthood; second, there are a number of other decorations (some related and mentioned in the list) that are not knighthoods. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to have been a bit of a content dispute on the 12th. I can't tell whether it stopped because of adherance to 3RR, or because it is now resolved. Can you enlighten us on this?

I'll keep this on my watchlist, and return to give further feedback when most or all of these points have been addressed. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave comments when points are actioned; I'll be the judge of whether of not they can be struck completely. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these points have now been addressed. I'm not sure if the ribbons are purely decorative images and should instead have |link=; if so, this can easily be changed. Per my nomination, I believe this article meets the featured list criteria. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could go either way here. There definitely should be alt text in each subarticle's use of the ribbon image. For this, the main article, I'd lean toward omitting alt text as needless detail. and using "|link=|alt=", but it's not a big deal. I did one spot check, and the ribbon for the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity disagrees with what's in Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity, so there's a bug there somewhere. I suggest double-checking all the ribbons. Eubulides (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D.P.R. No. 385 of 21 September 2001 modified the insignia of the Star of Italian Solidarity, but also retained use of previous insignia. This is the only one without an additional clasp. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been asked to revisit this. The comments I have made that are not capped or struck are still issues. From a brief look, this has improved considerably. I look forward to re-reading it properly in the near future. However I would prefer to do so after those outstanding points are actioned (or responded to if you feel that I am wrong to raise them). Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Neutral A lot of good work has been done in this FLC, and I have moved from oppose to neutral. But I have a slight concern about criteria six, which will hopefully be resolved with a response to this. Also, but I remain unsure about the lead. WFCforLife (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The bold prose in the lead doesn't match the title, why not?
Fixed.
  • "Below these are a number of other medals" - what's the relevance?
Clarified.
  • "effectively replaced as national orders" - effectively - what do you mean?
  • Three very short paras in the lead, probably better off being two bigger paras.
Fixed.
  • I would put the first image at the top of the lead, not the bottom.
Fixed.
  • "Except for exceptional .." except x 2
Fixed.
  • "2 June, anniversary" - the anniversary.
Fixed.
  • Second para of Order of Merit of the Italian Republic section is unreferenced.
Fixed.
  • "armed forces or individual personnel that has" reads oddly because of plural/singular/singular to me.
Fixed.
  • there are just 14 - remove "just".
I think the "just" is important here.
  • "Stella della solidarietà italiana" that italiana really not capitalised?
Really.
  • "Since 2008, however, it lies dormant." do you mean it has been awarded since 2008?
Clarified.
  • "Duke of Savoy to" comma after Savoy.
Fixed.
  • "was also abolished in 1944" why "also"?
Fixed.
  • Footnotes are unreferenced.
They are primary sources.
  • References - can we have a consistent language and format for the dates please?
Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) The above points have now been addressed. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Letters patent.." caption doesn't need a full stop.
I have kept this, per MOS:CAPTION.
It's an incomplete sentence isn't it? I don't see a verb... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Mephiston999 (talk)
* is the see also section at the top of the article really necessary? can we just put it in the see also section at the bottom of the article?
Fixed. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • some references do not have a proper formatting, especially the ones with extra notes about the regulation number and revisions
Citation templates are not appropriate for footnotes. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • some references are missing the retreived part
It is included where required, for convenience links publication dates are given instead. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • i've started to archive some of the urls so we will not have dead links in the future, it can always come in handy
Thank you. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it might just be me but I am kind of confused about the brackets in the lead "Knight (Cav.), Officer (Uff.), Commander (Comm.), Grand Officer (Gr. Uff.)," What are they supposed to mean? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 15:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're abbreviations of the Italian translations—Cavaliere, Ufficiale etc.—prefixed to names like "Sir" is in the Commonwealth. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well wouldn't it just be easier to spell the whole thing? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 16:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is they are prefixed in their abbreviated form, like "Mr." rather than "Mister". Chrisieboy (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at this. I hope it's clearer now. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this may seem confusing after my previous comments but after viewing a little closely I notice that the Abbreviations are only used in the top paragraphs, I was just wondering why are the abbreviations included anyway. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Italian_orders_of_knighthood/archive1&oldid=1061075058"