Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942


 * 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 –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Knight&

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I'm nominating this list for A-Class review because I feel it meets the criteria. The layout is identical to List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941, which just passed an A-class review. As always, comments and suggestion are more than welcome. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According the main contributor tool, you are not the main editor to the article, nor are you anywhere near the top and of contribution. The top contributing user is listed as one, has he been notified of this ACR? And do you feel you are in a position to guide this article through the ACR process? I ask because as a rule we prefer that the guy(s) or girl(s) that did the most contributing to the nominating since its assumed that they will be the ones most familiar with the article. At the FAC level, this would be consider a drive by nom and thus subject to early closure, but as you are a respected member of the community and the project I will offer a chance for you to answer the questions before I reach any conclusions on whether to close this early or keep it open. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Tom? I think there is definately something wrong with the main contributor tool in this case as, if one goes through the article history, MisterBee is easily the primary contributor and there is absolutely no mention of in the history. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no clue why the tool points to as the main contributor. You have to take my word that it was I who created, shaped the layout, wording, content and citations of this article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a look through the article history definitely confirms your position, Bee; it seems that out of the last 500 edits to the page your edits total roughly 400 of those made. I withdraw my above comment concerning the main editors, and will exercise more caution with the tool in the future. At any rate, my comments are as follows:
 * No problems with alt text, dab links or external links. Well Done!
 * I'm unclear about how this principle works on this page, but usually the first instance of the subject matter being discussed is listed in bold text, and I see no such text in the initial intro paragraph. I will not hold this against the article, but I am interested in hearing why there is no bold text here.
 * This frustrates me! Sorry, but I was instructed before that for a list this doesn't apply, see for instance List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I won't hold this one against you.


 * The intro paragraph has the line "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, including to a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle, or to a low ranking soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry.". As its phrased above the words suggest that you picked to such examples from the awards rather than the range of duties the award could be handed out for. I would suggest rewording to something like "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low ranking soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry." to fix this problem.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The part about Hermann Fegelein in the intro seems to have been added as an afterthought; there is no real reason given for the inclusion of the information in this particular part of the article. I would suggest either tying in his inclusion with the 24 questionable medals or omitting him from the intro altogether.
 * Hm not sure if I agree. Fegelein was the only recipient who had to retire his Oak Leaves on legal grounds (court martial and execution). All the other 24 so called disputed recipients could never have legally received the award. The AKCR claims they have but the records in the German archives tell a different story. Which doesn't mean that they may not have received the award if the war had continued? The Third Reich just ceased to exist and in post war Germany nobody ever followed up on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fiddle the with wording to keep the man in the intro and to help clarify the point you were trying to get across. Feel free to revert the edit if you feel it doesn't work.
 * Thanks sounds good MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do any of the enactments listed in the background section have articles here? As legislation I would think they wold be of high enough importance to warrant inclusion here, hence the question.
 * Well sort of! If you look at the article Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, my part time hobby, you will see how the Knight’s Cross is legally architected. At least that is what I am trying to achieve over time. Please note that I am trying to establish some uniform layout for all of the Oak Leave recipients here. Previous reviewers had always asked me to establish a minimal historic background. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The images for the men who won the award seem to be hit and miss, can you work on seeing about getting more images into the article? I know there will always be some that simply must go image less, but it seems to me that about half the list is without visuals, and that concerns me. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The images are indeed hit and miss. To my knowledge "Non-free media use rationale" does not allow me to use such pictures on lists. I have included every picture I could find that has appropriate licensing. If I missed one then it was not intentional. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose copyright laws are being considered for the article? If its US then I think our copyright policy states that you should be able to upload a copyrighted image on grounds that there is no way a free use variant can be found (these guys are by and large dead), but I need to check on that to be sure. If its German copyright law then I have no idea what to suggest. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So far I use pictures from Bundesarchiv and those that are public domain in the United States.

MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK you can fair use photos of everybody lacking one as they're not replaceable by a free image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I'd feel better if we had all the images, but at this point the article is complete as it can be without them, so I lend my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Not sure what all the differences are between Featured list and A-class list criteria but I see no reason not to support it. I do have a few things, most of them minor, that I noticed that may be a factor for FL.
 * There are several articles that need to be created and currently have red links.
 * in progressMisterBee1966 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The cells lacking images or with no data should have a dash.
 * doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the date of award column should be sortable
 * Some references have a comma after the name (ie 3, 8, 12, etc) but most do not, I think they should be consistent
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if 144 (starts with Hyazinth) is sorting correctly.
 * His last name starts with Strachwitz, I think it sorts correctly MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend making the date format consistent throughout the article. In the table you have dd mmm yyyy and references 4-7 use yyyy-mm-dd.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats all I have. Other than these things the list looks good to me. --Kumioko (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been some debate recently about how to state references so you may hear something at some point about specific and general categories under references being confusing. Not an issue for me per sey, just a heads up

Support
 * Mild curiosity why not any citations from Obermaier? He's the guy I normally see cited for these sorts of things.
 * Obermaier? Why? He is an expert on the Luftwaffe. With respect to the Knight's Cross recipients two sources clearly distinguish themselves, these are Fellgiebel and Scherzer. Fellgiebel continued what von Seaman had started with in the 60ties. I personally now of no better references than these two. All other sources I have come across are derivatives of these. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support
 * As usual, a good job at pulling this together. I have a single concern.  You've varied from your usual citation and source presentation style in this article, by using categories of "Specific" and "General" (you used to use Citations and Sources or References or some such nomenclature). See, for example, Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. I'm curious as to why you've done this? I'd recommend keeping the style consistent for the project. Also, your General (References) list does not include the Pdf citation ( what does ALEX stand for? ) nor do you actually cite Fraschka, Günther (1994) in your citations list.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Carelessness no reason here. I changed it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, with one minor comment: why do you link Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds in the Background section, but not any other grades? You've already linked to it in the lead. – Joe   N  22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * fixedMisterBee1966 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 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.