Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)/archive2
- 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 by Giants2008 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) edit
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this a 2nd time for featured list because I still believe it meets the criteria. The first time around it was not promoted because the review timeframe expired and nobody seemed to have shown sufficient interest in the topic. Thanks to anyone willing to comment this time around. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsNot supported Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the rank or date citations for several recipients are not cited for the date given in the table, only for Scherzer's alternative date, please check all the ones with a Note. The fact that this isn't seen in the Role and unit column indicates it may have been intentional, but I feel it is necessary for completeness. Examples include:
- Botho von La Chevallerie
- Dietrich von Choltitz
No changes made: It is a procedural question. I had built this list with the information from the AKCR/Fellgiebel. I cited this information in the Role and rank column only, one cite per row. In the second pass, I verified this with the information from Scherzer. Here I chose to cite every item of the table. This helps me keep an overview. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree. I don't think a "one citation per line" approach is the answer to this query. Either all information on each recipient is clearly sourced, or it is not. My view (as described) is that it is not in its current form. I cannot support this nomination with that approach to sourcing, in my view a sortable tabularised list such as this is effectively incomplete without greater clarity of sourcing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation style, citing every bit of info, follows the principles established during the reviews of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. All of which are featured lists today. Even if your comment warrants addressing, which I have, I feel that a final review comment "Not Supported", without first engaging in an open discussion, is not best practice. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the citation approach used is not adequate in its current form, regardless of the status of the other articles that might use it. The result of the citation approach you have used is that the source of some of the data (Fellgiebel) is not evident. I have changed my precipitate opposition to a tentative one, but I firmly believe this must be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated in my previous comment. I have implemented your suggestion! Have a look. The article lead already states that the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work. I don’t think that adding even more citations to this table helps clarity in any way. It would only impede load times. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where in the lead it says that "the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work". It states that the list (the assumption is the list of recipients) is drawn from Fellgiebel, but the point there is about the inclusion of a name on the list, not the details of the award itself in terms of rank or date of award. The addition of further citations from Fellgiebel is a significant improvement, but for example, Richard Czekay's rank of Hauptmann still needs to be cited, as does Erwin Clausen's date of award. When they are done I'll be happy to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It states "These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book". Thanks for finding the other two citations. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that the lead doesn't state that some of the data varies between the two sources, predominantly ranks and dates of award. A list of names is one thing, variances in data relating to the award between the two sources is another as far as I am concerned. Regardless, the additional citations from Fellgiebel resolve my issue, supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It states "These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book". Thanks for finding the other two citations. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where in the lead it says that "the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work". It states that the list (the assumption is the list of recipients) is drawn from Fellgiebel, but the point there is about the inclusion of a name on the list, not the details of the award itself in terms of rank or date of award. The addition of further citations from Fellgiebel is a significant improvement, but for example, Richard Czekay's rank of Hauptmann still needs to be cited, as does Erwin Clausen's date of award. When they are done I'll be happy to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated in my previous comment. I have implemented your suggestion! Have a look. The article lead already states that the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work. I don’t think that adding even more citations to this table helps clarity in any way. It would only impede load times. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the citation approach used is not adequate in its current form, regardless of the status of the other articles that might use it. The result of the citation approach you have used is that the source of some of the data (Fellgiebel) is not evident. I have changed my precipitate opposition to a tentative one, but I firmly believe this must be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation style, citing every bit of info, follows the principles established during the reviews of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. All of which are featured lists today. Even if your comment warrants addressing, which I have, I feel that a final review comment "Not Supported", without first engaging in an open discussion, is not best practice. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything I can do to attract more reviewers? Help MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll pop by in the next couple of days - ping me on Tues if I've forgotten by then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support much like the other lists, this has evolved and improved over time to be a good example of what to nominate at FLC, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nice piece of work: happy to support on this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.