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


 * 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.


 * Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Knight&

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review (yet another one) because of the similarities to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), (C), (U) and (V), all A-class at the moment, and (I) and (J) which are currently under A-Class review. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Announcement I am on vacation until early September! I will address your potential concerns with the article after I am back. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits.
 * "doubt regarding the veracity and formal correctness of the listing": This should probably be "or", not "and". - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Heer members received 52 of the medals, six went to the Kriegsmarine, 21 to the Luftwaffe, and three to the Waffen-SS." See the review on "J". - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Support
 * As per Woody's comment below.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Support
 * Considerable repeated links per WP:REPEATLINK - for instances the services of each recipient (e.g. Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine) and of some ranks. According to the policy "within each list only the first occurence should be linked". I know I have raised this issue in previous ACRs and I don't believe you have ever responded directly to these concerns (I could be wrong of course). Am I misreading our policy? Anotherclown (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noted before (in the "U" ACR that the first occurence rule doesn't apply to sortable tables as the first occurence changes with each click of the sort keys in the table. The sentence in repeatlink seems to refer to tables in the main bodies of articles and not in stand-alone lists such as this one. It is certainly perfectly acceptable at FLC. Woody (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy with that. I've learnt something today at least! Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (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.