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

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
  • Comment I believe the sorting feature contradicts WP:DATE requirements. I could use some help on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a look at the {{dts2}} template - does the hard work for you and should be good here! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Thanks! That does it!MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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]
    • Then perhaps a note of explanation is appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 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]
      • Absolutely. Good call. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 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]
      • Indeed, I completely agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And that really really is that! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]