Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine
I would like to know how to further improve this article. I understand that too many red links are still remaining but besides this I would like feedback on structure and presentation. I am also seeking feedback on translation of German terms and abbreviation. My ultimate goal is to bring this article to featured list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jackyd101

 * A very nice and interesting article which I don't think should have too much trouble reaching FL status in the near future. I have attached some comments below.


 * Tense. The article's tense wends all over the place. I strongly suspect that this article was written by someone who does not have English as their first language. If true, this makes the work put into the article even more impressive but leaves a few prose problems as a result. I have copyedited the lead but I suggest others do the same to weed out any other mistakes.
 * "318 German soldiers or servicemen of the Kriegsmarine" - I don't think the Kriegsmarine had soldiers, just sailors and marines. I suggest removing the soldiers bit entirely and just having "318 servicemen of the German Kriegsmarine".
 * There needs to be a clearer explanation of what the number in the first column indicates. This should also be located in the lead rather than the first section.
 * Not all those killed in action are listed as such on the page (i.e. Gunther Prien). Either list them all or none.
 * I would suggest putting the German translation of the award's name in brackets and italics after it is mentioned at the head of each section. This is because the awards are German in origin and many sources and links will give them in German (e.g. Gunther Prien's infobox). Thus it may aid the reader to see them in the correct context. It would look like "The Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves (Ritterkreuz mit Eichenlaub) was based on the enactment . . ."

Otherwise a nice article. I also recommend turning as many of the redlinks blue as you can. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Woody
(Edit conflict with Jackyd101) Hi there, first off, great list. I have a couple of suggestions.
 * Remove the first sentence. Repeating the title in the first sentence is being phased out at FLC and it is the pet peeve of some reviewers. First impressions and all
 * I would switch the second and third paragraphs in the Lead. That way you can merge the first and third to make a two paragraph Lead that works better. (So, move 318 below ...concluded the variants, and then merge the existing first paragraph)
 * Excellent work on the column widths, another pet peeve of some people, well done.
 * Why mix chronological number and alphabetically. (Incidentally, an explanation in the Lead of the chronological number would be helpful)
 * Why link all of the ranks in one table and then not in another (The Knights of the Iron Cross one). As it is a sortable table, it is preferable if you consistently link all of one column.
 * Why do you have notes for some and not all of the recipients? They don't seem particularly extraordinary circumstances. I would suggest just leaving them out altogether, though that is my opinion (that is how I do the Victoria Cross lists)
 * Specific references tend to go above general ones.


 * The other main problem, as you know, is the proportion of redlinks, something which has come up recently at FLC. I would suggest that the recipients need at least 80%, preferably 90% bluelinks. Good work. Woody (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

MisterBee1966
Indeed English is not my native language. So please excuse grammar errors I might have made. I do appreciate constructive help that goes beyond this is wrong because sometimes I wouldn't know how to fix it myself. Secondly, I am still in the process of verification. Sources sometimes are contradicting on some issues and I Wiki-link the rank when I feel confident that the stated information on this person is correct. Thanks so far for the input. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)