Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G)


 * The following discussion 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.

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Knight&

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this list pretty much follows the same layout and citation style of the other A-Class Knight's Cross recipients lists. I have implemented some of the recommendations of the FLC review of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), which was not promoted due to lack of interest by the reviewers. Nevertheless I think some of the few suggestions made make sense and I tried to implement them here. Enjoy the read and thanks for constructive feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * Obviously you are well into this series but I noticed a few inconsistencies in linked articles maybe you could check?
 * The article about the medal says the total number of the Knight's Cross was 7,313; since that # is uncited and doesn't match this article's total of 7322 I assume its wrong but I was hoping you could expand that section of the article with at least a new number w/citation?
 * I can't comment on the 7,313 but I have documented the 7,322 here MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Adolf Galland section has a cited date of 1 August 1940 instead of 29 July 1940 (which is present in the award summary). Thanks! Kirk (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked again and 29 July 1940 matches my sources. It is also the date listed here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What's a "Dr.-med." The hyphen looks funny and for medical doctors probably Dr. will do. There's a few more of these (Dr. med.dent.) so maybe just make sure its correct in German.
 * It is correct it reflects the German nomclature for various PhD degrees. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For Franz Gall, "Defender of the island fortress of Elba" is not exactly a role and unit that's probably better as a note; add a unit.
 * Wording taken from Knight's Cross documentation, see picture as an example MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a stretch that's a "role" but you still could add the unit; otherwise I would use a different label if its just extra stuff on the certificate (or a note).
 * The unit is not stated and all three sources Von Seemen, Fellgiebel and Scherzer use the same role description. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "called von Gaza" probably doesn't need to be in the list, or maybe as a note. It also sounds like a mistranslation to me of (alternately spelled X) or "also known as X". I think there's some standard for this type of thing.
 * reworded to "also known as" MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would prefer "Generalstab" translated, "im Generalstab" left off the rank(s).
 * im Generalstab is an official rank extension. It should stay MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case translate the extensions to English.
 * done and added link MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On the other hand "of the Reserves" = "das Ersatzheer"? Or some other kind of Reserves? Probably deserves a wiki link instead of the general one if its a specific reserves.
 * Would you think this link is better Reservist? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Similarly, "der Infanterie", "der Panzercorps" probably not needed on ranks, but those descriptions make sense to me when you describe the unit.
 * It is an official rank and has to stay MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case translate them to English.
 * Okay, I can do that but why doesn't the link suffice? The link seems to be enough for all the other ranks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Literally translating "for disposition" doesn't really make that rank more clear - maybe a note (or omit?)
 * Dr.Dr. Wilhelm Göller? Double doctor?
 * yes that is possible in Germany MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No space between the Dr.Dr.?


 * Hermann Göring you probably should expand his rank since he had quite a few options in that department and/or perhaps some special note of him in the recipient section of the article to address his relative importance (for better or worse) than the rest of the people in this list. Kirk (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See picture. All ranks, units, dates and further info is taken from the official Knight's Cross documentation. The info reflected on these lists matches exactly the wording of these documents. The fact that Göring had many other roles and titles is irrelevant to the Knight's Cross. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because he held multiple ranks simultaneously so someone could dispute the rank listed unless you clarify that in a note. Kirk (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I chose to refrain from this. The fact that he had other roles also applies to other people on the list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see the argument on this from either side, specifically since you are using the rank in the citation, the one way I see to improve this is to include a note stipulating that the rank listed is as according to the citation for the award and for all other rank information, persons can refer to the appropriate entry for that (assuming one exists). Aneah 21:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I already stated in the lead that "The rank listed is the recipient's rank at the time the Knight's Cross was awarded." How do you suggest I make this more clear? I am open for suggestions. I could add "... and matches the ownership documentation." MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments
 * Is there a citation for the chart in the "presentations vs. posthumous presentations" table at the top of the "Recipients" section?
 * yes, it is in the text. The chart is a graphical presentation of the data. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been told when making sortable lists to link items each time they show up, instead of just on first reference, because the items could appear in different orders depeneding on how they are sorted. Have you heard this in any other reviews?
 * yes I have and I believe to have done so. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also been told to italicize non-English terms, like the ranks here. Also wanted to see if this is standard practice or if it doesn't apply to lists. It makes Göring's entry look sort of inconsistent when his title is the only thing italcized but many German titles are presented.
 * Gordon Gollob, Heinrich Gottke and Heinrich Gottke's listings have me wondering why you don't use the German term for "Platoon leader" or "Regiment commander" in the rest of the listings.
 * Because we have an article for these specif use cases. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed these lists before without asking, but what makes Veit Scherzer and Walther-Peer Fellgiebel the authorities on the recipients? Maybe a line or two to discuss their credentials might be useful.
 * Good question. Veit Scherzer wrote his book in corporation with the German National Archives. The book is in the library of the University of the Bundeswehr (Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler) and Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and considered an accepted reference. Fellgiebel's work was Scherzer's reference point and used to be the accepted reference. The two books reflect the generally accepted lower boundary and upper limit of the who-is-a-KC recipient. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. If you could say exactly that in the article when you introduce them, I'd be happy to support. — Ed! (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, should I put this in the lead or as a footnote? What about citations? How do I make this statement verifiable? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be better in the text as opposed to a footnote. And I'm sure there's a foreward or some kind of "about" describing the credentials of the authors somewhere in their books to establish them as reliable sources. — Ed! (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * done please verify if it meets your expectations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me know. — Ed! (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All comments have been addressed. Supporting now. — Ed! (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - This list is up to your usual, excellent standards. I trust the above comments are/will be resolved. Good work, MisterBee. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support. I'll jump in here with a couple of observations, I'll make minor spelling and grammatical changes myself, feel free to revert them if they are wrong.
 * both Reichsarbeitsdienst and Volkssturm, not being loanwords, should be explained in parentheses in the way you have with Heer etc. The sentence itself would benefit from breaking into two. It already has two dashes.
 * added explanation MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * in the Recipients section, you introduce the Grand Cross, but you have not defined it as part of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross enactments under Background, and therefore it does not follow why it is included in this article given there is an article for the Grand Cross.
 * Good point, I expanded the background. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you are well advanced into this series, but there are several things about the table that I am unsure about 1. the repetition of the wikilinks for ranks; 2. the lack of equivalents in parentheses for the ranks; and 3. italicisation of the ranks per MOS:FOREIGN. Could you clarify?
 * Regarding 1. see Sturmvogel's comment; 2. I believe that I was once advised to take it out if we have an appropriate link; 3. hm, you are probably right. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. ok, no prob there 2. I don't get that, given most German ranks are unintelligible in 'English' ie most redaers are going to think "WTF is an Obergefreiter?", and 3. right, so? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For uniformity reasons with all the other featured and A-class lists I will stick with the layout as is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. Moving to support. Well done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep going and try to finish up soon. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's me done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can clarify one point: the ranks are all linked because the list is sortable and you don't know which one will be first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I took a quick look at the article and I think this is already good. There were enough citations and the rest of the criteria was met. I think it'd be impossible to put more images there anyway. Arius1998 (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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 discussion.