Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 -MBK004 06:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Knight&

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am seeking more formal feedback on this list of Oak Leaves recipients of the year 1940. This particular list is part of a larger list that I have broken down into collection of lists for the years 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. The main reason for breaking it down was the size of 882 listings could not be handled easily with acceptable load times. Thus breaking the list down into the different years made it logical and manageable (at least to me, you may feel differently of course). Moving forward, I want to bring all six lists to the same quality level as the list of 1940. I have to acknowledge that the size of the 1940 list, with seven listings, is quite small and may not meet the criteria for A-class. However I do ask the reviewers to judge this in context of the larger collection of all 882 recipients of the Oak Leaves. Thus if the reviewers oppose A-class based on size of this list, I do want to ask for recommendations on alternative groupings that are logical and symmetrical in nature. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick comment/leaning oppose. I agree that it was wise to split the giant list into separate groupings, and also agree that year-wise was probably the best way to do so. However, as I stated in this article's peer review I do not think that with such a small number of entrants that this truely qualifies as a list. As I also stated in the peer review, I would recommend that this list and List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1941 be combined to form List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941, which would create a rather decent sized list and one that could merit A-Class and possibly FLC. I believe the merger of the two lists is rather logical given that both these lists are noticably smaller than the preceeding lists. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Agree with above Support this is too short on its own (and of course in the other format it was too long). A happy medium, in line with Abraham's proposal, would be more effective.  The load times on the first incarnation were appalling, and this is too short (10 entrants?).   I think if you add the years together, this will make it manageable in terms of size, and reasonable in terms of comprehensiveness.  BTW, I do like the format, however, with the person's name and a picture, etc.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment assuming that the merge is the way to proceed. Would it be okay to retain the "Recipients of 194X" subsections? This would make jumping into the respective year via the navigation template still possible. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think that is a good idea. Also, re-direct the old lists into the new one. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree with that. With the subsections, it will be more manageable, and the entire list a better size.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By popular demand I merged the 1940 and 1941 list. Please have a look if this now meets your expectations. Do note that the navigation template in the upper right hand corner no longer highlights (in bold) the respective article it is in. I don't know how to fix this. Please also have a look if the column width for the two tables are aligned, they are okay on my browser. To be honest, I liked the old two article layout (one per year) better. What happens next? Do I have to withdraw this A-Class review now and replace by a new one? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't line up on mine. As far as I'm concerned you don't have to withdraw and reapply.  But I have no power here. ;)  I think the single year article would be a good idea, except it becomes very short.  Is it going to become unmanageably long when the other years are added?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the bolding issue in the template. I tweaked it so it displays as "1940–1941", instead of two single lists; I think this was part of the problem. Within the template there were two links to the same page, but they led to specific sections in the list rather than to just the list in general. The columns all align on my screne, but do remember it is not a major issue if they do not. Also, I agree that the single lists for these two years was better in principal, but there were not enough entrants to support this. However, I would advise against the combination of any additional lists in the Oakleaves year series, as all of the other lists do have enough entrants to support a single article. Keep this review open; I will move the review page to reflect the new article name. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I did not find any ambiguous links in the article, but your lead image needs alt text. A to changing page names during an ACR: no, no withdrawl is nessicary; however, you do need to change the page name listed in the FAC toolbox. Otherwise, the autmotic scrpts loaded to check for the alt text and all that will report back to a reviewer that no such page exists, and that can thow a guy for a loop :) TomStar81 (Talk) 17:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I added an alt text. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 *  Oppose for now Most of the list part with the recipients contains no citations, and I would like to see each individual listed in the tables to be credited with at least one site in a manner similar to what appears at List of battlecruisers of Germany. Its got potential, it just needs a little more tlc before recieving an A from me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * done I cited the entire unit column. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support That is much better. Thanks for the swift reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I think that merging 1940 and 1941 has resulted in a list of a good size. – Joe   N  18:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.