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


 * 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 EyeSerene talk 13:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Knight&

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating another Knight’s Cross list for A-Class review. Like all the previous lists, this list is similar in structure 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), (J), (O) and (Q) 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) 09:55, 2 August 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) 06:57, 11 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". Per my comments on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (O). Anotherclown (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about this, per comments below. Happy to support. Anotherclown (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Support This is a sortable table, no telling what entry might come up first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: no major issues. Per my review for WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Q), I think that the capitalisation of the work The owners of the highest award of the Second World War in the lead probably should be changed to The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War, so that it conforms to title case (apologies for not suggesting this on your other reviews). However, that is not enough, IMO, to hold up promotion to A-class (but please consider prior to FLC). Good work as always, though, MisterBee. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support with one comment: The ISBNs are not consistent. One is the 13-digit version, the rest are 10-digit versions. Please fix. — Ed! (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Heer members received 74 of the medals, three went to the Kriegsmarine, 23 to the Luftwaffe, and four to the Waffen-SS.": I wrote out the numbers (seventy-four ... twenty-three). WP:ORDINAL says: "... 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs."  Chicago agrees.
 * "This indicates that historian Veit Scherzer has expressed doubt regarding the veracity and formal correctness of the listing.": I don't why he would care about the formal correctness of untrue information, so "and" doesn't make sense; I changed it to "or".
 * "Of these 104 recipients, eleven were later awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, one the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and seven presentations were made posthumously.": nonparallel. I went with: "Of these 104 recipients, eleven were later awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and one the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords; seven presentations were made posthumously."
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks looks good to me MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 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.