Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by The Rambling Man 17:36, 28 November 2010 [1].

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)[edit]

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from bahamut0013wordsdeeds
*Comments:
    • Alt text is good. The table sorting is good, though it might be a good idea to allow sorting by date of award (I know this is the default sort, but sorting back to it would be nice). I like that you used {{Sortname}}, you should use {{Dts}} for the dates and {{Sort}} for the names (they currently sort alphabetically, instead of by precedence of rank).
Sorting by date: done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of redirecting wikilinks. I know that green links are not inherently wrong, but the sheer number begs for a clean up, especially on the German-language links that aren't likely to be renamed to that title.
      • There is no problem at all with redirecting links, and I don't see why this needs to be brought up. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose/Lead: I would move the paragraph about the number of recipients from the lead to the lead of the "Recipients" section. Otherwise, it is well-written and seems complete.
Either way is okay for me. The paragraph about the number of recipients pertains to all 882 recipients from 1940 to 1945. Moving it to the Recipients section could give the impression that it pertains to the years 1940 and 1941 only. I will wait a bit until others comment on this issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a concern easily remedied with a bit of context. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comprehensiveness is good; clear scope, no obvious omissions, not redundant.
    • Does the number column indicate a number associated with the award, or just a running tally? If it is the latter, it would be better just to mention the totals in the prose and delete that column.
The intro of the recipients section states "Within each of these lists a unique sequential number was assigned to each recipient. The same numbering paradigm was applied to the higher grades of the Knight's Cross, one list per grade". This official sequential number is presented in the Number column. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, the "Notes" column seems to suggest that some of these men are multiple awardees? It might help to clarify this (possibly with a link to the other lists if necessary).
Hmm, I tried to explain in the background section that the Knight's Cross came in 5 different grades. Your comment suggests that I failed to make this clear. The Notes column therefore indicates two bits of information, first it would indicate whether a higher grade was awarded, second it states the date of death if the award was awarded posthumously. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, the number is for the sequence number assigned to that award of the higher grade. That's what was getting me confused, because I was unclear with the previous point as well about individual numbering. I think that a link would more than help with that clarification (for example of Eduard Dietl, link "Awarded 72nd Swords 1 July 1944" to List_of_Knight's_Cross_recipients#Knight.27s_Cross_with_Oak_Leaves_and_Swords). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the respective link in the background section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referencing: Seems you lean very heavily on Scherzer. I'd like to see some more variety in sources if possible, especially since the foreign language source is a bit harder to verify. I also prefer to see use of the citation templates, but plain text is by no means a requirement or even a suggestion.
To my knowledge research has produced two comprehensive works on the recipients of the Knight’s Cross (and its higher grades). The first is by Fellgiebel, the second is from Scherzer. Fellgiebel, as a recipient of the Knight’s Cross himself and former president of the Association of Knight’s Cross recipients, was a bit more lenient when it came to accepting evidence of the KC. Scherzer presented a book that is based on the information of the German National Archives. A number of authors have presented subsets of these works. Example: Obermaier has focussed on the recipients in the Luftwaffe, Kretschmar on the Waffen-SS, Runge on the Kriegsmarine. Personally I don’t believe that these subsets add more value since they more less are all based on either Fellgiebel and/or Scherzer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid you might say that. That is one of the problems with foreign topics: they tend to get less significant coverage. The German language article seems to use him a lot as well, but perhaps you can glean a few refs from there, if you haven't looked already. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Style seems good. No obvious image issues jump out at me, but I haven't inspected every single one. Likewise, Stability seems good from the article history.
  • Please respond at your convenience, and I will decide on support based on your counter-arguments or fixes. A thought I just had, not really related to the FLC, is that the two navboxes (Template:Footer Knight's Cross recipients and Template:Knight's Cross recipients) seem like they would make more sense merged. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Is the title correct? Should it be "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941"?
Good point! This change in name would then apply to all of the lists? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think low ranking should be hyphenated.
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excluding the 8 foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves." -> just "excluding the 8 foreign recipients" or "excluding the 8 foreign recipients of the award" or whatever, but don't repeat the whole title again.
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You abbreviate AKCR but never use it, so no need really.
I would like to keep it because it is used in the 1942 to 1945 articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for RSD I suppose.
likewise MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's personal, but I'd much, much prefer to see the image of the chap next to his name.
I am so used to the layout by now, I have been working on these articles for three years now. Unless you make this a show stopper I really want to keep it as is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No show-stopper, just a preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number should be made clear that it's the overall running total, not for the year. I know you say "Within each of these lists a unique sequential number was assigned to each recipient" but is it you assigning this number or the AKCR?
The section starts with "The Oberkommando der Wehrmacht kept separate Knight's Cross lists ...". Is it not clear that it was the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht that assigned this number? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose so. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded slightly. Please check if this is clear now MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 4 to 7, just confirm you're using format=pdf in the ref please.
I use format=PDF MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need it in lower case (pdf). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check {{Cite web}} it uses the upper case MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lower case pdf gives you the neat little Adobe graphic, so perhaps the advice on the template page is incorrect! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done but I see no graphic MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps it's by virtue of the hyperlink ending in .pdf, not the parameter itself. A list I've been working on (PDSA Gold Medal) has several of these icons... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it again to be template compliant since it made no difference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fine. It is because the links don't actually point directly to a .pdf. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Looks pretty good to me, although I have a couple of suggestions:
    • There is some repetition in the prose. For instance the first two sentences in the lead (and the third is only slightly different) both begin with "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross". Is there some way to reword this?
      • Would rephrasing the second sentence to "This military decoration was awarded ..." fix the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the first sentence of the lead the word "were" seems to disagree with the word "award" - "were" is plural, while "award" is singlular. If singluar it should be "was", if plural it should be "awards";
    • in the lead, "won" or received? (received probably sounds better, I think);
    • I think that some linking clauses might make the prose flow a little more smoothly. For instance, inclusion of "however" in the second sentence of the second paragraph indicates the juxtaposition of the two sentences more clearly;
    • "left the nominations unfinished in various stages of the approval process" or "...left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process"? (I think the second would be more clear);
    • the Notes section for Eduard Dietl probably needs a full stop after 1 July 1944 as "At the same time..." begins with a capital letter;
    • the capitalisation in the notes field for Heinrich Liebe probably needs to be tweaked (I think it should start with a capital for consistency, e.g. "Awarded # Swords" starts with a capital). There are similar inconsistencies in the Unit field, where some begin with caps and others don't. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything looks fine to me. DocYako (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • General comment The intro is adequately written, introduces suitably to the topic and the list is efficiently referenced. I have checked the majority of the links myself and it would seem that no ambiguous links exist. Also, no fair use photos are used. I hence can say that I support the nomination, but first, some minor comments:
    • My main concern - which may be possibly unjustified - is about the use of X./Y (X Battalion of Y Regiment, and similarirly about the other Army Branches, i.e. the Luftwaffe). I don't know whether the average reader is familiarized with this symbol. Replacing this abbreviation is undoubtedly highly impractical and maybe not suitable. Perhaps add a note about what this symbol denotes?
    • I noticed that Hermann Hoth lacked a picture. This one is available, but I hesitated to use it as I'm afraid it doesn't adheres to the de facto style of other photographs used, which tend more to be of "portrait"-style. Unless I'm wrong about that, we sould wait until a more suitable (maybe one from Heinrich Hoffmann) can be found.
    • The same as above for Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach.

As I said I think the overall condition of the article is more than satisfactory. This is all I have to point out for now, but if anything further comes to my attention, I shall make a comeback. --Jake V (talk) 21:15, 19 November 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/List_of_Knight%27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_with_Oak_Leaves_recipients_(1940–1941)/archive1&oldid=399355541"