Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 15:21, 6 March 2008.

List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross

edit

The list is complete and reflects the same style used in List of Knight's Cross recipients. Therefore it should qualify for FLC as well.MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Firstly, just wanted to check that you were expecting this to be a FLC, not a FAC as you've written above? Done FLC was what I wanted.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following List of" - why captialise List? And you've used list twice in the first sentence which reads oddly. Done
  • Actually the first sentence reads badly all round, it says the same thing twice. Done reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid single sentence paragraphs. And avoid text in parentheses. Done
  • "another countries military service" - in "another country's military service"? Done
  • "The first enactment Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573[1]) " - what does this mean? Why the ")"? Done removed the )MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the war" - so far you haven't said which war. Done
  • If you want the table to be sortable then don't say " The recipients are ordered chronologically." Also, wikilink countries etc on every row even if they're repeated because the table could appear in any order.
    • Comment The last time around (review of the List of Knight's Cross recipients I had to add sorting to a chronological list. Now it should be removed? What shall it be? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I wasn't involved in the review you refer to but when you have sortable tables then it seems a little illogical in the lead to say the table is chronologically ordered when it potentially isn't. I just think the sentence is unnecessary, but it is, after all, just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the reference which proves these awards were given? Done
  • Sort out the date format used here per WP:DATE. Done
  • What does "+31 Mar 1944" mean? Done
  • Look at splitting references into general and specific.

Hope the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Further comments[reply]

  • First sentence of lead is now nearly 100 words long. Too long for my small brain. Done I reworded the first paragraph.MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or its higher grade the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, plus one recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords." - I would say "or its higher grades, KC with OL or KC with OL and swords". (expanding the abbreviations!)  Donesee aboveMisterBee1966 (talk)
  • Why order the tables differently?
    • The German Archives keep records for the lowest grade, Knight's Cross, in alphabetical order. Every higher grade is numbered (only the Germans) but the foreigners are ordered chronologically. I think Wiki should list them this way too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the citations per WP:CITE if possible - in a number of cases you could move the refs to the end of the sentence they're used in, immediately following punctuation. Done
  • "1945 I S. 11[5]) " - why the closing parenthesis? Done
  • My opinion, but I would list them in ascending order.
  • "Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords" - suddenly in quotations. Done
  • " (Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 613)" - you have said this once already, and why now in parentheses? Done
  • "commander-in-chief" - some level of capitalisation required I would think. Done
  • "non German" - hyphen missing? Done
  • IJN points to a disambiguation page and ought to be expanded on its first use anyway. Done
  • "Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 849)" closing parenthesis again, why? Done
  • Consider using the {{sortname}} template so you can list the names in a more natural manner without losing the ability to sort. Done Now some red links in the table!MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you read the sortname template instructions, you can pipe an additional parameter, namely the article name. This should restore your blue links! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for pointing this out. What I meant is that the template always automatically creates a link. I understand how to tweak the template (3rd parameter). But I don't know how to make it not do this.MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I beg your pardon. I hadn't realised that the template enforced a link. You're absolutely right. However, it does raise a question - why shouldn't the red linked articles become blue? If they're notable by virtue of receipt of such an "honour" then perhaps you could consider writing, at least, a stub for each one? A great way of expanding the Wikipedia?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No I don't mind the red links. Would this be a show stopper for this review? And yes maybe I will create some of these articles. :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure what criterion you're suggesting this should be a FL. Reading WP:WIAFL, the first criterion suggests bringing together a set of existing articles (which I think this is trying to do). If the articles don't exist but you expect they should then there's a good chance this nomination may fail unless you have articles in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well I think it fulfills all of the following criteria: useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. My interpretation so far was that the list has to fulfill these criteria and may contain empty buckets/articles. Are you telling me that only once every item of the list is created, will the list be eligible for FLC? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, I don't believe that's what I'm saying. I'm just suggesting that to make the article more useful then it should accommodate a set of existing articles and collate them into a useful list. Quite possibly the list meets one of the other two criteria but no harm in making it even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573)" - why in parentheses? Done
  • Ranks in the last table are all unlinked - can this be improved? Some of them are very jargon-ish and need to be explained to help the non-expert, as do the divisions in which the recipients served e.g. "OB d. ungar. armee" means absolutely nothing to me. Done
    • No, not done as far as I'm concerned - the divisions are still undecipherable to non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked the article a bit more and now addressed the units. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider making the widths of columns in all three tables consistent so the page has a consistent look about it. Done

Still a way to go before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - okay, hopefully this is the last bunch!
    • Heer needs disambiguation.
    • I think it may also be useful to place in brackets what each branch represented.
    • "fore instance " - not fore, for, and I'd say "for example".
    • Link to the diamonds and golden oaks leaves articles.
    • I would expand KIA - I know most of us know what it means, typically you'd expand an acronym before using it.
    • "Swords May 27..." - perhaps "Awarded Swords"?
    • "Fieldmarshall-Lieutenant" - Field Marshal-Lieutenant? (in English)? (Question really...)
    • Division needs disambiguation.
    • Split references into to General and Specific.
  • Then we're getting there! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for sticking with me. I believe I have addressed every comment. Thanks!MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. I'll recheck the article tomorrow and let you know how I think it's going! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Last ones, I hope! MUCH better now than when I first found it - hope you agree (do a diff, you'll impress yourself!) but a last few bits...
    • Use the {{Cite web}} template for your web citations, nicer look and feel. Done
    • I'm wondering now if Country should be nationality?
      • I hesitate because the person served in this countries military service and may have been of other nationality. Nationality, to me, implies that this person has this nationality.MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't capitalise Submarine. Done
    • Should "chief of fleet" be capitalised? Done
    • Consider using a cross rather than an asterisk to denote posthumous award.
      • I hesitate because a cross may affiliate that this person is of Christian belief, which I don’t know. I therefore used the asterisk, just like on the lists of Medal of Honor recipients MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that really really is that! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a pretty short list, is there any reason why it can't be merged with List of Knight's Cross recipients, which isn't particularily large? -- Scorpion0422 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I mentioned the reason for the separate list in the second paragraph. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second paragraph where? -- Scorpion0422 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "It should be noted that the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht did not assign a numbering scheme to 'foreign recipients' and have listed them separately from the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS recipients."MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's highlighted another problem - there's a lot of jargon (for want of a better word) here - it's quite inaccessible to the non-expert. Featured content needs to be accessible to all so I think you need to do some work on explaining the context further, trying to de-jargonise or describe the German further... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, then the list is too short to be an FL because such a short list does not represent "Wikipedia's Best Work". Several other FLCs have failed because of the same reason. -- Scorpion0422 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I explained my reasoning more explicitly and expanded the intro a bit. I believe this addresses the issue.MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, would it make sense to merge List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross and List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves? I had broken them into two lists because they refer to different grades of the same award and make navigation via the Template easier. To both list the same paradigm applies that the recipients were not members of the German Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS and have to be listed separately because historically they were listed separately. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge sounds perfectly reasonable to me. No reason why Wikipedia should list them separately. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have merged the two lists. Hopefully the combined material has enough substance for FLC.MisterBee1966 (talk)
  • Support - a lot of hard work has gone into this since its initial nomination, all thanks to the dedication of MisterBee1966. I satisfied that the article is now suitable for elevation to WP:FL, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if the same column in each of the tables had the same width. Right now, there is a sort of 'wavy' appearance to the tables. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't see that. Every table starts like this
{|class="wikitable" style="width:100%;"
|-
! width="25%" | Name
! width="9%" | Country
! width="14%" | Rank
! width="24%" | Unit
! width="10%" | Date of award
! width="18%" | Notes
|-
If this can be improved I don't know how. Comments/suggestions are appreciated. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me as well. It would seem to depend on the OS/browser. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support Asterisks are really bothering me. The explanation is really easy to miss. I'd suggest to denote posthumous receipts with something more obvious, like a)coloring a cell, or b)use {{note label}}.--Crzycheetah 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_foreign_recipients_of_the_Knight%27s_Cross&oldid=1143873579"