Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (I)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of the similarities to the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and (C), both A-Class and (U) and (V) which are also currently under A-Class review. The layout and structure is derived from the Oak Leaves lists, the majority of which are featured lists. Thanks for the feedback! MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Announcement I am on vacation until early September! I will address your potential concerns with the article after I am back. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Not sure what's happening with sorting the ranks starts with NCOs to officers then back to NCOs
- Are you saying they should sort from highest ranking to lowest ranking and not alphabetically? MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its your choice but I can see no need to sort alphabetically, while by rank makes more sense. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I tried something for the first time, I used the 22 rank levels of Fellgiebel (bottom to top) MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its your choice but I can see no need to sort alphabetically, while by rank makes more sense. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying they should sort from highest ranking to lowest ranking and not alphabetically? MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For Iden and Ivers should it not be Commander instead of leader.
- In both instances the German text of the citation states Führer (leader) and not Kommandant (commander) MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its lost in translation Leader of an assault gun - Commander of an assault gun Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite so, the German term is a bit ambiguous. A leader could be a leader of a single or more than one assault gun, tank, etc. while a commander is always used in conjunction with one single assault gun, tank, etc. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its lost in translation Leader of an assault gun - Commander of an assault gun Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support happy to support now Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as with the 1945 Oak Leaves list, everything looks to be up to par. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. 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.