suggest Fellgiebel's book "has now been succeeded" by Scherzer's work, assuming that is the meaning to intend to convey. It might be worth clarifying this, as you use Fellgiebel extensively. Perhaps both are considered the key references, but Scherzer's draws some of Fellgiebel's work into question?
I am not sure what you are asking for. I have a sentence in the lead "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered a reference work on this topic and is now succeeded by Scherzer's work." Does this not address what you are suggesting? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the issue is with Fellgiebel's book being "a" reference for many years, when it should probably be described as "the key" or "the main" reference, then the reference to Scherzer?
suggest you need to explain in the lead or background that recipients needed to have been awarded the Iron Cross I Class IOT be eligible for an award of the Knight's Cross.
I propose to add "Article 2 of the enactment mandated that the award of a higher class be preceded by the award of all preceding classes." just after the sentence "The first enactment, Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573 of 1 September 1939 instituted the Iron Cross (Eisernes Kreuz), the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross (Großkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes)." in the Background section. This is more generic since it also applies to the higher grades of the award. Would this work for you? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually it is kind of arbitrary and in alphabetical order. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
photos all look ok.
CommentsSupport My comments have been addressed. —Ed!(talk) 11:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you've heard this back and forth a lot over the history of this series, but how did you decide which terms to italicize? The rule I've been aware of is that it's for other-language words on en.wiki, but though the ranks of each listing are decidedly German words, only some of their titles are in italics. Thoughts?
I don't understand why you include bracketed PhDs for those who received them after the war, since it's unrelated to their awarding of the decoration. It would be just as useful to note ranks attained after the receipt of the award.
Accademic titles were part of the name at the time. The references also list them with these titles discriminating between titles before and after the KC presentation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"Dr. jur. Dipl.-Ing. Albrecht Lanz" -- I can sort of understand the other titles, but this one I have no idea. You'll need to link it or something.
Also the footnotes section should probably be multi-column because of its length.
Will check back. —Ed!(talk) 01:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Support - up to your usual standard, MB - keep up the good work. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.