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


 * 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.

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

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * Support.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Yes that would fix the issue, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * done Thanks for the support and all the suggestions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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";
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "won" or received? (received probably sounds better, I think);
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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;
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "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);
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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;
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Based upon the feedback of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 review, which I think was a good idea, the list was renamed to "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)". MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Everything looks fine to me. DocYako (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 introduced a note to the column "Role and unit" referring to Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS which tries to explaning the German naming convention. Please let me know if this addressed the issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support. Only issue I found is "However author", where I believe a comma should go in-between. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.