Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)


 * 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 10:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Knight&

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this for A-Class review since 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 (already at FLC). The 1942 list is a featured list now, 1943 is also A-class waiting for FLC review. The 1945 list is still under construction once completed all lists 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) 11:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A1 looks good for citation consistency. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: sorry lists aren't something I'm very familiar with, but I'll try to help out with this review:
 * I think there is a typo in Note # 32 - "According to Scherzer as commander of Greandier Regiment 4" (should this be "Grenadier"?). Also in Notes # 25 and 28: "A bestowal thus didn't occur". I think that the contraction "didn't" should be replaced with "did not" so that the language is more formal. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * no dabs, ext links all work (no action required);
 * according to the tools, some images appear to have alt text, while others do not. While it is not an A-class requirement, you might consider making it all uniform;
 * I plan on completing this for FLC review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in Note # 20: "nomination by the troop" - what does "troop" refer to here? Is this a military formation (as in a platoon-level formation?) Or is troop being used here to refer to personnel? If so, which personnel nominated him? It might need to be tweaked to make this clearer (this term also seems to be used in a number of other notes, so please look at those also);
 * I am using the term "troop" as a generic term for an unspecified military unit or formation of which neither size, type nor command structure is known. Please help me explain how to best formulate this. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in this case using "the troop" would imply that the unit has actually already been discussed/introduced earlier in the article/list, I believe. Additionally, saying "nomination by the troop" is problematic because it is implying that the nomination was done at troop-level (e.g. in a number of militaries a troop is the name for a platoon equivalent formation, usually commanded by a second lieutenant or lieutenant), which in most cases this would not be likely given the ranks of some recipients and the requirement in most military units for nominations to be made at least at battalion/regimental level. As such, my advice would be to just say "nomination" and remove "by the troop". For instance, this would be fine IMO: "Fritz-Hubert Gräser's nomination was received...". Same for the other instances of this phrase. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked this to just "nomination" as per my comment above. If you don't like this, feel free to just revert as it is not really major, and I'm happy to support either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in Note # 24: "Dönitz has never signed this list, most likely he has never even seen this list." (Because Donitz is no longer living, past tense should be used. Thus it should probably be: "Donitz never signed this list and it is believed that he never saw it."). AustralianRupert (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "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—excluding the 8 foreign recipients of the award.": I couldn't see a reason for the semicolons, and I changed them to commas. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I believe the semicolons had been introduced by a review of either the 1940-1941 or 1942 review cycle. Please advise me on how to handle this on the articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone edits an article that's up for review and you're pretty sure their edit is wrong, it's fine to revert it and explain; if you're not sure, you're welcome to ask me or ask on the review page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments Overall, a nice article. The last point is the only reason I'm commenting instead of supporting, but I look forward to supporting as soon as the above issues are resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is "low-ranking" in quotations in the first paragraph of the lead? Is this a quote from a source (if so, should be referenced, even though it's the lead)?
 * It was requested by the FLC reviewers of the 1940–1941 article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The FLC for the 40-41 article is here, and the only thing I can find is a comment by Rambling Man that low ranking should be hyphenated (which it still isn't), not placed in parentheses. Am I missing something? Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually no! I am too dumb to tell the difference between quotes and hyphens. Fixed now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the lead the award name is "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves", but in the background it's called "Oak Leaves to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross"
 * Are there any summary statistics for this award that could go into the "Recipients of 1944" section? How many were awarded to various ranks, how many to officers versus non-coms, how many postumously, any special circumstances? Even three or four sentences would be helpful to the general reader looking for an overview of the 1944 awards but not wanting to sort through the whole list.
 * I have added a sentence to the lead of the recipients section listing the number of posthumous recipients as well as a breakdown for the Heer, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Waffen-SS. I want to refrain from breaking this down further. A rank comparison for instance is difficult for two reasons. First, the service branches had different names for similar ranks. Secondly, Fellgiebel and Scherzer occasionally state different ranks. I hope this is sufficient. Have a look please. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The second point is still outstanding, but that is not enough to hold up A-class for. I have added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 13 January 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.