Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Victoria Cross
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Victoria Cross edit
Hi, this article is currently undergoing peer review in which no major problems were found, any that did arise have been fixed. As this is a "top" priority article i though it could do woth an A-Class review. Thanks in advance Woodym555 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Appears to meet the criteria. CLA 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very good article, but it seems to contain some vagueness which should be clarified and some irrelevant material. For instance:
*"it has been suggested by some that the changing nature of warfare will result in fewer VCs being awarded" - who are these 'some' (are they credible?) and why is this the case?- Done, The some are Lord Ashcroft in his book and John Glanfield in his. I have amended the sentence accordingly
*"Only one in ten VC recipients in the twentieth century is said to have survived the action for which they received the VC" - is this speculation ('is said') or a fact? - are there reliable statistics on this you can cite?- Done This was mere conjecture, i agree, and there is no statement anywhere that backs this up. I am sure trawling through the archives would support this, but this could be classed as original research so i have omitted the statement.
*I was confused by the discussion of the source of the metal used to make VCs. Is the source from Russian guns or Chinese guns? - the section seems to suggest both. Also, is it known whether non-British VCs would be made from this metal as well?- Done The metal was captured from the russians during the crimean war but it was a chinese weapon. Also during the first world war many medals were being created and so a new cannon had to be used to meet requirements.
*Some sections of the article read like trivia and should be reworked - for instance, the text on the photo of the Canadian during the actions which would win him the VC - this is interesting, but is it significant? "In 2004 a national Victoria Cross and George Cross memorial was installed in Westminster Abbey close to the tomb of The Unknown Warrior' - you need to explain why this is significant for readers who aren't aware of Westminster Abbey's role and status. It's also not clear to me why the men who have been awarded the VC in the last few years are highlighted with brief accounts of their actions when no-one else really gets this treatment.- Done
- Deleted irrevalent picture and comments, this was a remnant from before i picked up the article.
- Spoke slightly about Wetminster Abbey and its significance but the wikilink does the rest.
- Have updated and rewritten section on recent awards. Budd has a section describing his award as it is the most recent awarded and provides context for awards in the modern style of warfare.
- Done
*"a Canadian version has been cast and is expected to be awarded in April, 2007" - has this happened? Victoria Cross (Canada) seems to indicate that it hasn't and won't, and doesn't confirm that the medal was cast.- Done Expanded section talking about the fact it was created but not awarded.
*The 'Sales of the VC' section needs to reworked to acknowledge that many more than just the two VCs listed have been sold. A discussion of the ethics of doing so might also be interesting - this is discussed in the Australian media every time a VC is placed on the market (even though the medal is inevitably donated to the AWM's collection).--Nick Dowling 23:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Done up to a point. I dont think Wikipedia is an ethical debate forum. However I have given a comment by the VC secretary as to why they have been sold. This provides the context for the rest of the section.
- Support, quite informative Wandalstouring 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all the concerns I raised above are now met. Sorry if I seemed a bit of a pain in the neck. --Nick Dowling 08:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not a pain in the neck. Just a very thorough reviewer, and that was what was needed. Thankyou for taking the time to review it in detail and your comments have made it a better article. Thankyou Woodym555 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.