Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)/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 Giants2008 18:24, 26 March 2011.

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the fourth of five lists for featured list because I feel this list may meet the criteria already. The number of read links is 8% and within the limit of what I have seen to be acceptable here. 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 (currently a featured list), 1942 (currently a featured list), 1943 (currently a featured list), 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) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support meets my expectations of this kind of list right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I didn't see any problems other than those already mentioned when I looked at this last week. Since those are resolved... Courcelles 22:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

-- Cheetah  (talk)  04:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments or more like questions because I am confused
 * With the exception of Hermann Fegelein, all of the disputed recipients had received the award in 1945... - This sentence makes me feel stupid. If they all had received the award in 1945, why are some of them listed in this list (1944)?
 * Indeed if you take the sentence out of context it can make you feel stupid. Start reading with the sentence beginning with "A total of 7 awards were made in 1940, 50 in 1941, 111 in 1942, 192 in 1943, 328 in 1944, and 194 in 1945, giving a total of 882 recipients". You will understand that the sentence in question pertains to all of 882 recipients. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I read that sentence, but I also read the sentence that said Veit Scherzer disputed 27 of 882. Am I correct so far? The next sentence states that all(meaning 27 disputed recipients) but 1(Hermann Fegelein) had received the award in 1945. It means that 26 out of 27 disputed recipients had received the award in 1945, so in this list I expect to see one disputed recipient at the most. What confuses me is that in this list, that should contain those who had received the award in 1944, I see eight(!) recipients that were disputed by Scherzer. I am not trying to be rude, sarcastic, or funny. It's just eight does not equal to one for me.-- Cheetah  (talk)  02:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the problem now! How about if I phrase it like this "With the exception of Hermann Fegelein, who had received the award in 1943, ..." Note: the disputes in column "Notes" refers to the disputed recipients of the Oak Leaves with Swords (not the Oak Leaves). You have a point that this needs to be made clearer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some (hopefully) clarifying sentences in the section "Recipients of 1944" MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, I understand. Two more comments before I support,
 * 8 or eight?
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the "key", can you clarify that question mark indicates those who had received Oak Leaves and Swords?
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The dates from the "Date of award" column are taken from the Scherzer 2007 book. Am I right? I see that each date has a reference to that book. BUT what I don't understand is why the recipients 462, 463, 464 and 638 do not have Scherzer's dates. Also, I don't understand why the recipients 404, 526, 618 and 670's dates of award do not have a reference next to it.
 * The sentence "The number of 882 Oak Leaves recipients is based on the analysis and acceptance of the order commission of the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR)." defines the source of all ranks, roles, units and dates. I double checked every information with the information published by Scherzer. A discrepancy between Fellgiebel, former president of the AKCR, and Scherzer is commented as a footnote. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are those notes that start with "According to Scherzer..." complete sentences and need final periods?
 * All footnotes should end with a final period. Omissions are not intentional. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * }
 * Support -- Cheetah  (talk)  17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.