Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2017

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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Lourdes 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is the only article in the Indian Premier League genre of multiple featured lists[2][3][4][5] that consolidates the seasons and results of all IPL seasons till date... I have tried to ensure that the article has engaging prose and lead, apart from being comprehensive and having an easy to read structure. I have only got one Featured List in the past, so am not perfect in this. Please do suggest changes for improvement to enable this to come up to FL standards. Thanks. Lourdes 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm concerned this violates 3b. Most of the lead is similar to the main IPL article, and in fact, there's even more information on the seasons and results in the main article (in the "Tournament seasons and results" section) than there is in this spin-off. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks The Rambling Man for the assessment. Comparing the leads of the main article and the list (here's the diff of the comparison), I find that the similarity between the leads is with respect to who organizes IPL (BCCI) and who the winners have been. Do please advise on whether this seems an issue to you. With respect to your second point, the List focuses on differentiating the seasons, while the two tables in the main article you mention Indian Premier League#Tournament seasons and results focus on the team performances and not on season results. Do advise me on whether this seems an unresolvable issue to you. If it does, I'll withdraw this nomination as I respect your views considerably. Thanks again. Lourdes 13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries. A quick observation before I dash off for a short while, I think this list would probably benefit from having all three tables spun off into it, and in that sense the stand-alone-ness would be much easier to defend... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely brilliant suggestion. Will work on doing this in the coming week. Lourdes 14:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There aren't enough entries in this list to justify it being a separate page, let alone a featured list (I was told 10 entries was the minimum for a standalone list when I tried to get List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches promoted a couple of years ago). Also, I don't believe the column headers should be coloured blue like that; can we not just stick to the default table formatting? – PeeJay 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten has never been a bright line, and if there's justification for spinning off an article from a larger one, such as that on the IPL, with appropriate additional and relevant material, it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way PeeJay2K3, that head coach list looks pretty nifty these days, nice amount of detail in the lead sections too. It think it'd be worth nominating! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! Fair enough then. I might nominate that later. I've also stricken my opposition above. – PeeJay 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'm still not a fan of the blue table headers, but it's not enough to completely oppose this nomination. However, I'm not going so far as to support the nomination just yet. – PeeJay 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • PeeJay2K3 first of all thanks for striking the oppose. Give me around a week to spruce this up with the brilliant suggestions given by The Rambling Man. Will ping you then and hope you love what comes out. Ty and have a great Wednesday morn. Lourdes 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made a bold edit to change from the blue/smaller font/shaded table to one which is clean and accessible. It might not be to your taste, so feel to revert, or better still, start with that and embellish it. The other thing I'd say is that you have a number of references, all of which just say "Squads" or similar. It would be better to find a way to differentiate the titles of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it! Will do that! Great work on the table! Big thanks. Lourdes 02:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Update – I have completed the work on the references titled "squads". They are all differentiated by placing the correct year/season in the title of the references as well as the term "IPL" in front. Hope that makes sense. Lourdes 03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Rambling Man hi again, here's the current update – I have shifted both the tables from the other articles to this spinoff list and have nuked the color background, as well as given appropriate keys and section headings. Tell me if this looks how you suggested it to be. PeeJay2K3, as promised, a ping to you. Do check it out and tell me how it looks. Thanks. Lourdes 05:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, a friendly ping to Nikkimaria. Wanted your help – if you have time, can you please give a quick look to the logo file used in this article and confirm whether I've used the right non-free-logo use rationale? Thanks so much. Lourdes 12:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You certainly need to correct the name in the article fair use justification so it reflects exactly the name of the article(s) in which it's used. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done :) Thanks. Lourdes 13:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you and also thanks for dropping by. Good to interact with you again. Lourdes 02:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments okay, looking much better, so some comments on the current list. "second-best paying sporting league globally" it's important to note that this is pro-rata, top players in IPL earn about $2m p.a. while top EPL footballers can earn >$20m , it's just that the season is a different length. "The inaugural 2008 IPL season " some redundancy here, I would rephrase to say something like "the inaugural IPL season, held in 2008", or something... Ditto for " the latest 2016 IPL season" "Till now, there have..." normally we'd use "As of December 2016, there have..." "double round-robin format.[16][13] " prefer to see refs in numerical order. See others... " for the playoffs' stage" just "for the playoffs" is fine. " there have been thirteen teams that have" -> "thirteen teams have". "Of these thirteen, five teams..." no need to repeat "thirteen". "won the tournament title till date" do you mean "as of December 2016"? Results table, only the number of teams is explicitly referenced, what about the venue, player of the series etc? Ensure all tables meet WP:ACCESS, per MOS:TABLE, i.e. row and col scopes. Including keys. That's enough for the moment, hope this helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I have worked and done all suggestions, leave the last one (the mos:table and access). I am not quite conversant with tables, therefore will take a couple of days to ensure all table guidelines including keys are met. Will ping you once am finished with the last suggestion. Thanks for taking this much time out. Lourdes 09:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] No worries. Regarding the scopes, this edit should show you the sort of thing I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Oh that is helpful. Will get onto this. Lourdes 10:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Phew. Finished the row and col scopes for all tables, including keys. Here's the diff of the series of edits in which I did it. Hope this is acceptable? Thanks for the guiding edit. Lourdes 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Just pinging The Rambling Man and PeeJay2K3 for a quick dekko and advise on whether there might be any more stuff to do here. Lourdes 08:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed (and apologies in the delay getting back to you, I must have missed the ping. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh thank you so much The Rambling Man. The support from you is so lovely. Lourdes 14:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrB.TG

====Comments from FrB.TG==== Not something I am very familiar with but still: "from eight cities across India" in is better I think. (Done. Lourdes) "The inaugural IPL season, held in 2008" - do you need to state the year of when it was held? You figure it out in the previous sentence. Also, "inaugural" should be included in the "2008 Indian Premier League" link: "The inaugural IPL season". (Done. Lourdes) "with the latest IPL season being conducted from 9 April to 29 May 2016." No need for such specificity. The days can be scrapped. (Done. Lourdes) "with the latest IPL season being conducted from 9 April to 29 May 2016.[13] The current IPL champions are Sunrisers Hyderabad" - I would suggest combining these sentences. Something like: "with the latest IPL season being conducted from April to May 2016,[13] won by Sunrisers Hyderabad". Also, if you could get rid of the fused participle in the sentence, that would be great. (Done. Lourdes) "the top two teams play each other" - play each other? To play someone means to pretend to like them so that you can get something out of them that they wouldn't normally give you. Am I missing something here? (Done. While one alternative was "face each other', I have used "compete with each other". Lourdes) Why does MOS:DTT only apply to the IPL season results table here? (I'd already applied suggestions given by The Rambling Man to all tables. If there's anything particular you wish to be changed, please do mention and I'll get it done. Lourdes) I am talking about the grey shades (as in !scope="row") in the IPL season results table. Why does it only apply there and not other tables. It should be consistent. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] The date formats in references are very inconsistent. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC) (Quick thanks to Cowlibob who has been kind enough to make them consistent. Lourdes)[reply] Hi FrB.TG, thanks so much for giving the feedback. I've incorporated all of them. If there's anything else, would get that done too. Thanks once more. Lourdes 05:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (on hold; just one concern above that has not yet been addressed). Though not familiar with this particular list, I do know much about cricket. It is a great list IMO. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG thanks for the additional note. I've done that too. All tables, including keys, have the necessary consistency. Thanks. Lourdes 18:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to endorsing its promotion. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FrB.TG. Lourdes 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Not sure a non-free image of the IPL logo is justified in this article. It would be in the main article on the topic, but I don't think it aids the understanding here. "Of these, five teams are no more a part of the tournament." "no more" → "no longer"? Ref 16 seems to be missing the last part of the page range. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Hi Giants2008. First of all, great to get your comments here. I've changed "no more" to "no longer", "83-" to "83". I'll go by your suggestion on the IPL logo. If you wish me to remove it, will do. The logo is used in two articles on Wikipedia, has the appropriate copyright use information, and in my view, gives an informative and easy-to-visually-understand look. As per IPL's copyright guidelines listed at [6], "Purely editorial use of IPL Names and IPL Marks solely for conveying information and without association with any commercial entity is permissible use." Do suggest. Lourdes 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I still think it doesn't belong here. The image licenses we use here don't permit entities to ban commercial use, so it wouldn't be valid as a free image, and I still believe its fair-use claim is weak. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Hi Giants2008. Done. Removed. Thanks. Lourdes 02:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My few issues have been resolved and this looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. Thanks. Lourdes 02:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk Ref #3 is missing author information (Rohan Sen) and the date of publication. Ref #4 is missing author information (Tom Holland) and the date of publication. Ref #5 is missing the date of publication. Ref #6 is missing author information (Sarbvir Singh) and the date of publication. Ref #7 is missing author information and the date of publication. Ref #8 is missing author information and the date of publication. Ref #9 is missing author information (it should be noted it was an agency report) and the date of publication. Ref #10 needs a more specific date of publication. Ref #11 needs a more specific date of publication. Ref #12 is missing the date of publication. Ref #13 is missing the date of publication. Ref #16 is missing author information. Ref #17 is missing author information and the date of publication. Ref #18 is missing author information and the date of publication. Ref #19 is missing the date of publication. Ref #20 is missing author information and needs a more specific date of publication. Ref #21 is missing the date of publication. Ref #22 is missing the date of publication. Ref #23 is missing the date of publication. Ref #24 is missing the date of publication. Ref #25 needs a more specific date of publication. Ref #27 is missing author information and the date of publication.

Other than those referencing issues, this looks a very good article, well written and well researched. Harrias ^talk 13:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Harrias. It'll take me a couple of days to get through this. I've learnt quite some bit from this nomination. I hope in my next FL nomination, most of the standard issues would have already been dealt with by me before nominating (for example, reference structure, table formats etc). Once more, thanks for taking the time to review the references. Lourdes 05:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Harrias hello once more. I have finished all the reference updates. Here're the diffs for the same. Thanks. Lourdes 08:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with that tidied up, this is a great piece of work, nicely done. Harrias ^talk 09:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Harrias. Appreciate that. Lourdes 11:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the newest form of the centuries old game, this feat has only been achieved 11 times by 10 female cricketers. A newly created article, this will soon appear on the main page as a DYK. With only eight out of current 189 cricket featured lists on the women's game, I believe that this will be a great addition to that. I await your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry Mention the name of the player in alt text Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] 9 runs -> nine runs Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] 'innings' is linked twice in the lead Done unlinked second occurance – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "The first five-wicket haul was taken by New Zealand ..." - Be more specific about the format Done good pick up, added the format to the sentence – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "The most recent haul was taken by Suné Luus of South Africa against Ireland during the 2016 ICC Women's World Twenty20 in Chennai." - You mean a five wicket haul? Also, mention the ground name to maintain consistency. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "Julie Hunter of Australia took the least economical five-wicket haul, bowling with an economy rate of 6.60." - Date would be helpful Done added date – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Month and year would suffice. (it also helps maintain consistency). —Vensatry (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Modified as suggested – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "Players from six of the teams that hold Twenty20 International status have taken five-wicket hauls, with Bangladesh, Ireland, Pakistan and Sri Lanka the only teams for which a bowler has not achieved the milestone." - This needs to be rephrased for grammar and clarity. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Is there a way to club this one and the 'Netherlands' bit? —Vensatry (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I have had another crack at it. Let me know what you think. – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] The last line (about four-fers) seems a bit irrelevant. I have seen this added on other five-wicket haul lists. I think it give the reader some context on many times players have just missed out on achieving the milestone. But happy to remove it if you insist. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Fine, no issues —Vensatry (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Adding country names (in the 'Ground' col.) would be helpful to the readers. Done added date – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Include a tertiary sort for the 'Wkts'. column based on economy rate. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] —Vensatry (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Vensatry: Thank you very much for the review. I believe that all of your comments have now been addressed. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Also, one other question. In which order should be batters be listed – the order in which they appeared on the scorecard or the order in which they were dismissed? I have done the former but I could not find anywhere what the preference is. It should be documented in the style guide. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I guess there's no clearcut rule. But, we normally follow the latter. —Vensatry (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] This one is still unanswered. —Vensatry (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Vensatry: Sorry about that. I have now listed the batters in the order in which they were dismissed. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments along with source review (random spotchecks included) "Players from six of the 10 teams that hold Twenty20 International status" - 10 -> ten as they are comparable figures. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Link 'economy rate' to the more appropriate article. Corrected links in both the body and the key – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] In ref #2, why the page no. is linked to a url? Updated ref, corrected page number and the link to the relevant page within the pdf document now works – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Add page no(s). for ref #3. Updated ref and added the page number – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ref #4 - Material faithful to the source Ref #5 - I don't think the 'New Zealand defeated England by nine runs' bit is covered in the source. Added additional source to support claim – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ref #12 - Material faithful to the source Ref #14 - Material faithful to the source —Vensatry (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Vensatry: Additional comments have been addressed. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (source review included), nice work on the list. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thank you so for the review Vensatry – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "the best bowling figures in an innings by a player in the international format" should that be best by a woman? Just a question as I'm not sure what the best men's T20I figures are... Corrected. By the way Amy Satterthwaite's 6/17 has only been bettered by one male player, Sri Lanka's Ajantha Mendis who took 6/16 in 2011 and 6/8 in 2012. Which means that Satterthwaite's performance was the best overall from 2007 to 2011. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] "aged just 17" remove "just". Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] " from a total of 380 matches,[18] a total of " "a total of...a total of"... at the least, the second is unnecessary. Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comma after Sri Lanka and comma after England needed. Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] That's all. Minor stuff. A good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Thanks very much for the review TRM. I have addressed the above comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all good for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much TRM! – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meet the standards. Khadar Khani (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – no concerns at all from me. Harrias ^talk 09:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm) in the same format and layout as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C), which after numerous reviews at peer review, and at WikiProject Military history A-class review, have evolved into featured lists. I am actively reaching out to @The Rambling Man:, @Tomcat7:, @Peacemaker67:, @Chamal N:, @Dapi89:, @Auntieruth55:, users who have participated in previous reviews of this topic. I am also reaching out to @K.e.coffman: who feels that the current lead, background and choice of sources to be inappropriate. The “Background” section of this list is driven by requirements 2, 3 and 4 of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. This abstract gives the reader the historical and legal background to better understand who qualifies to be listed here. Second, to better understand my choice of sources (Fellgiebel and Scherzer), I have to be a bit more elaborate here as it might guide you in making recommendation to the lead. As of today, there is no “official” list of KC recipients. Nazi Germany has seized to exist and Federal Republic of Germany has no interest in publishing such a list either (my assumption). To my knowledge, we have to rely on the opinions of various authors. As of today, three authors have tried to tackle this topic, Gerhard Von Seemen in 1976, Walther-Peer Fellgiebel in 1986 (a second edition was published in 2000) and most recently Veit Scherzer in 2007. It should be noted that various other others have published books on subgroups of this holistic listing (examples include Rainer Busch and Hans-Joachim Röll who have written a book on U-boat war). Simplifying the issue, Fellgiebel defines the upper threshold (in terms of who is listed), while Scherzer defines the lower threshold. However, neither Von Seemen, Fellgiebel nor Scherzer claim to have published an “official” list, it just does not exist. For that reason, and because the prevailing literature and online media is based on these two books, I chose Fellgiebel and Scherzer as the primary sources for this (and the other lists as well). To the best of my ability I tried to reflect in Wikipedia how and where they differ, you will see this in the number of footnotes associated to this topic. I want to mention that Fellgiebel, as its former president, is associated with Association of Knight’s Cross Recipients (AKCR). In 1999, German Minister of Defense Rudolf Scharping banned any official contacts between the Bundeswehr and the AKCR, stating that it and many of its members shared neo-Nazi and revanchistic ideas which were not in conformity with the German constitution and Germany's postwar policies. Scherzer based his book on the analysis of the Federal Archives of Germany. Again simplifying the topic, Scherzer concluded that every recipient listed by Fellgiebel up to 20 April 1945 can be confirmed by information held in the Federal Archives, despite the fact that in some instances specific details, such a date of presentation, rank, unit, etc. differ. Scherzer goes on to explain why this is so. The deteriorating state of Nazi Germany, confusing orders issued by Hitler, breakdown in communication, you name it, caused issues with some recipients named by Fellgiebel after 20 April 1945. Scherzer refers to these listings as “questionable” as the records of the Federal Archives do not support a listing. However, Scherzer also points out that he cannot positively delist them either. When creating these lists, as a Wikipedia editor should, I tried to balance these two views equally, without placing undue weight of one source over the other. Please join in and comment on how this list can be improved. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my comments here also.

• For a foreign language speaker, Misterbee1966 has done a commendable job with this list, limited though he is, by the availability of sources. I have read his comments and the article carefully, and am satisfied there are no obvious concerns over translations and I cannot see what harm there is in compiling a list from different sources. That the sources he mentioned are supported by the Freiburg archives (at least to 20 April 1945) and Scherzer has applied some water-tight analysis to the subject using this wartime documentation, allay any issues over reliability. There is an extensive list of notes at the bottom, which is unfortunate, but cannot be avoided if the article is to be maintained as a "list".

Also, there seems to be a desire for some (or one) editors to shorten the article even further to exclude those personnel Scherzer has assessed as questionable. I see no reason to do that since it cannot be shown whether the award was not officially (I prefer that word to lawful) authorised. There is no need for another list with those (193?) men. Fragmenting Ba-Bm's etc, which you'd have to extend to the other lists, may only serve to confuse people. It makes sense to have it one place.

For a subject that requires a lot of explanation the article is concise, with a clear and well-written introduction. I'm also please the German translations are given and I think that's an effective way to communicate in German-related articles. Such a format educates a reader instantly. It conforms to policy and Misterbee's approach has been used on other successful nominations over the years, and I don't think we should deviate from it because of the objection of one editor in 10 or so years. Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Comments.

• Comprehensive I have read the list, reviewed the sources, and I've followed the discussion of the veracity and possible bias of the sources. I'm satisfied that this list is a verified as it can be given today's available sources. As a professional historian of the history of Germany, I do appreciate the problems connected with WWII articles. My attitude has usually been to test secondary sources against primary ones. This list meets that test. I see no reason to exclude the personnel Scherzer thinks questionable, since their "questionability" is dealt with through a clear explanation in the list text, and followed up with copious footnoting and clarification. Color coding the over all list, instead of fragmenting the list into a subgroup of "Scherzer" approved individuals, is an excellent solution to the challenge. It must be noted, furthermore, that sources are never perfect; we must always "read against the source" to extract information—that is extract from the source information it didn't necessarily intend to provide—that is what historians do. For example, baptism lists were always simply a list of babies who were christened, yet historians use it to provide information on family size, mortality, social relationships (through god parenting, see for example David Sabean's notable works); even contemporaneous uses provided draft lists for the state. The lead and text establishes the controversy surrounding these lists. It is possible, furthermore, for a reader to identify those whose award might be questionable. What I find most useful about this list is the clarification not only of the men who received the award, but of the problems surrounding its awarding, and the subsequent controversies. It is a list, not a magnum opus, and we must let it be what it is, and that it is within the confines of the information presently available.
• Structure The list is sortable on all categories, which is a useful feature.
• Lead and prose The lead describes the award, eligible personnel. The prose is correct and easy to follow in the lead, the background section, and throughout the list itself.
• Style the Style is clear and appealing. I'll leave it to someone else to verify image usage.
• Stability This list and associated lists, have been extensively discussed in the military history project. It complies with the standards identified there, and should not be the subject of any edit wars.

I reiterate my support for this excellent list and look forward to reading the comments of other reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions: G'day, as always, I'm not great with lists so please feel free to ignore my suggestions if they don't make any sense. I looked mainly at the notes: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest removing the self pointing redirect links (these are highlighted in green if you install the User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js script

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its higher grades were based on four separate enactments." --> "The establishment of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its higher grades was based on four separate enactments"?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "received by 1st squadron of P5..." (what is P5?)

• added commentary MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• grammar: "contacted the 9th Volksgrenadier-Division by teleprinter message on 5 March the 7th Army because..." (not quite sure about this sentence: can you please try to refine it?)

• reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "when Major Domaschk reminded..." (just Domaschk on second mention)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• grammar: "A file card for approved or rejected presentation was not created" --> "A file card for an approved or rejected presentation was not created."

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The entry dated of 25 January 1945 which..." --> "The entry date of 25 January 1945 which..."

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• grammar: "On 21 April 1945 the nomination arrived at the time relocating 1. Squadron of the HPA..." --> "On 21 April 1945 the nomination arrived at the time 1. Squadron of the HPA was relocating"?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• grammar: "This statement was either never sent, may have gotten stuck or lost, at least it does not exist anymore." --> "This statement was either never sent, may have gotten stuck or lost, or at least does not exist anymore". (Not sure about what "stuck" means here also, so it might be best to remove this word and replace it with something else);

• done, replaced "stuck" with "delayed" MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "His personal file contains a letter..." --> "His personnel file contains a letter..."? (Suggest also joining this sentence to the previous sentence with the conjunction "although")

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "In a file of the German Minenräumdienst dated just after the capitulation is an entry "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves" without indicating a date of the award." --> "Further, a German Minenräumdienst file dated just after the capitulation contains an entry reading "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves", but does not indicate a date of the award"

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• suggest linking "German Minenräumdienst", perhaps to German Mine Sweeping Administration;

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cross yes, 28 April 1945", Friedrich Blond was a member of the AKCR" --> "Cross yes, 28 April 1945". Friedrich Blond was a member of the AKCR";

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• suggest putting the citations and possibly the notes into two columns to reduce whitespace;

• Citations changed to {{Reflist|25em}} MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• inconsistent presentiation: compare "Williamson and Bujeiro 2004" v. "Thomas & Wegmann 1987"

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book, Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 — Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile — The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945 — The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War of all Wehrmacht Branches." I suggest putting the English translation in brackets rather than repeat the emdash, for example: "...1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book, Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 — Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile (The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945 — The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War of all Wehrmacht Branches)."

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, and it has...." --> "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, but it has..."

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your efforts. All my comments have been addressed, and I see a lot of other improvements. I also believe that the list conforms with the standards established for many similar lists – such as those shown here. As such, I support the list's promotion to FL. That said, I encourage you to continue to address the comments below where they are outstanding, or discuss where you disagree with them, as there are no doubt still some improvements that could be made (which is something that can be said about pretty much all articles/lists, even featured ones). In this regard, I have a few more suggestions, none of which impact upon my support (please feel free to ignore them if you wish):

• Regarding the issue with the order commission/blue ribbon commission link, I'd suggest probably just delinking it altogether, unless something more suitable can be found. I had a look at committee, but that didn't seem quite right either. Potentially something is being lost in translation...?

• done unlinked MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the concerns about "Scherzer wrote his book in cooperation with the German Federal Archives", perhaps "Scherzer's book was compiled from documents held by the German Federal Archives" or something similar?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "A total of 7,321 awards were made between its first presentation on 30 September 1939 and its last bestowal on 17 June 1945.[Note 1] This number is based on the analysis and acceptance of the order commission of the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR)." Suggest moving this to the start of the second paragraph of the lead, to (potentially) help the narrative flow> Potentially also, instead of "A total of 7,321..." it should possibly be "Up to 7,321..." due to the disputed ones?;

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if this might be worked on: "...having received the award in 1945, when the deteriorating situation of the Third Reich during the final days of World War II left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process". Potentially, something like this: "...having received the award during the final days of World War II, when Germany's deteriorating war situation interrupted the processing of a number of nominations, while others were subsequently approved without reference to the proper authority"?

• I implemented Peacemakers suggestion, see below MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the concerns about having too many notes, perhaps these could be rationalized by removing them where the information is largely the same as that which is already in the table. For instance, it is probably not necessary to have this footnote: "According to Scherzer as Hauptmann (war officer) and Staffelkapitän of the 6./Schlachtgeschwader 2 "Immelmann"." when the note says pretty much the same thing, e.g.: "Staffelkapitän of the 6. and leader of the II./Schlachtgeschwader 2 "Immelmann".

• A suggestion for discussion, I broke out the notes into three sections. The first section are explanatory notes, the second contains notes regarding the dispute by Scherzer, and the third contains the notes regarding the discrepancies in information. Alternatively, I could present Scherzer's opinion first and Fellgiebel's view second. Let me know what you think of the layout. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a quick look at the images, but soon found myself out of my depth, sorry. Perhaps @Nikkimaria: may be free? Anyway, that's it from me. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for several reasons:

• Neutrality: Per discussion at MilHist archives: Knight's Cross Holders List articles: Lead and opening section. To summarise comments from Assayer and myself:

• Copy can be perceived as promotional for Scherzer's work: The article claims: "Scherzer wrote his book in cooperation with the German Federal Archives. The book was chosen by Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler for the library of the Bundeswehr University Munich and Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and is considered an accepted reference there".^[1][2] (...) This and the other claims are referenced to Scherzer's own webpage and the "cover" of the 2007 edition. (...) Without saying anything about the quality of the work in question, I deem these statements to be promotional. More at the link above.

• Perhaps, but given the continued assaults on his qualifications, I think that MisterBee has perhaps gone a bit overboard on showing that his work has academic acceptance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• POV language: AKCR's "order commission" is being misleadingly piped to the article on Blue-ribbon panel; use of Third Reich instead of more neutral Nazi Germany.

• good point on Third Reich, changed to Nazi Germany. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Scherzer is described as "author and historian", while I could not find sources to corroborate this: "Veit Scherzer" historiker.

• Another failure of due diligence: Schzerer has written histories of the 46th and 113th Infantry Divisions so I think that it's fair to say that he qualifies as a historian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not. This qualifies him as an author, but not as a historian. What is his educational background, career, etc? Has he trained or worked as a historian? Definition from m-w.com: "a student or writer of history; especially: one who produces a scholarly synthesis". It has not been shown that Schzerer is known for producing works of "scholarly synthesis". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose: The section Background, also discussed at the link above, is difficult to read due to excessive italics and foreign language terms; sample:

• ([Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)), based on the enactment [Reichsgesetzblatt 1945 I S. 11] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) of 29 December 1944, became the final variant of the Knight's Cross authorized.

Note: These issues appeared to have been resolved following the discussion at MilHist resulting version, but have been reverted. Thus, I don't believe the article currently meets the WP:NPOV requirement.

• Sources: The article is cited to Walther-Peer Fellgiebel and Veit Scherzer. The former was a long-term head of the Order Commission of the Association of Knight's Cross recipients, and his book is not independent of the subject (awarding of the Knight's Cross). Scherzer's work is published through his publishing house, which I assume means it's a self-published work. Fellgiebel and Scherzer both agree on the recipients up to 20 April 1945, so I don't see an issue in using either for these recipients. Nonetheless, given that WWII is probably the most studied period in German military history, the fact that this work was not published by an independent publisher (or the work undertaken by a professional historian), suggests to me that the interest in the topic of the Knight's Cross recipients is a specialized one, while Wikipedia is written for the general public.

• I emphatically reject the last sentence of this argument. Wikipedia is not just for the general public; it is for everyone, even specialists. The caveat is that it needs to be comprehensible for everyone. The in-depth articles in WP:MED are often used by medical students and even doctors as quick references and dumbing them down as Coffmann seems to think appropriate would take away quite a bit of their utility from an audience that requires that level of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Excessive amount of notes: The minute differences between Fellgiebel and Scherzer -- i.e. "as Hauptmann of the Reserves" (Fellgiebel) or "as Hauptmann" (Scherzer) -- seem immaterial and trivia not of interest to the general reader. I'd expect them to be interested in learning whether or not the subject was a lawful recipient (if at all), and not in this intricate detail. For simplicity, I would suggest going with Scherzer as the more up-to-date and independent source, who compiled his materials based on the documents from the German Federal Archives. Likewise, the "A" recipients article states: "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, and it has now been superseded by Scherzer's work". If archival documents say "Hauptmann" I don't see a reason to "compare and contrast" with Fellgiebel, as it's unclear what data his book is based on.

For discussion on Fellgiebel and Scherzer, please also see 2013: Recent deletions of unreliable sources.

In summary, I do not see this list representing Wikipedia's very best work due to POV issues and excessive amount of detail based on two sources with each having its own challenges.

My attempted editing of the article was primarily driven by the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink. As a result, certain recipients were deemed non notable, and their articles are being redirected to this and other alphabetical lists. I feel the readers would benefit from more neutral language, avoidance of perceived promotionalism and simpler presentation than currently available in the article.

With that in mind, I'd also like to ping the participants of the last phase of the discussion ("Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles") @Iazyges, TonyBallioni, Chris troutman, Bermicourt, Collect, Kleuske, Peacemaker67, Indy beetle, Anotherclown, Monopoly31121993, Aoziwe, Lemongirl942, Otr500, Assayer, CCCVCCCC, Hydronium Hydroxide, Kmhkmh, Peterkingiron, and Necrothesp: to see if we could get wider community input. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite sure why I was pinged at least I can't recall participating on discussions of the list nor do I usually participate in featured article or list discussions. But since i'm here anyway, I'd say I roughly agree K.e.coffman's assessment.

Formal criteria aside, I find these extensive nazi Germany hagiographic stuff rather questionable in general. Most of it usually based on often questionable sources which are at best borderline acceptable anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with K.e.coffman's assessment. I will also note that the footnotes should be made into EFN's to avoid confusion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestions/Comments/Questions - ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Lead:

• Should the English-language title of Fellgiebel's book be in brackets rather than separated with an em dash?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can the subtitle of Fellgeibel's book be omitted from the body of the text?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Change "Author and historian Veit Scherzer has challenged the validity..." to "Scherzer has challenged the validity..." to eliminate duplication.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Change "had received the award" to "were listed as having received the award", given the doubt/dispute.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Change "hand out" to "presentation"

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That the lists are based on the work of Fellgeibel and Scheizer should be briefly stated, however the bulk of text should be moved to the Background.

• Peacemaker presented an alternative lead which in parts contradicts this request. Please advise MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This and the next two points are connected. I'm not going to push further if you prefer the current sequence, but even after modification, I find the structure of the lead awkward. It's currently roughly:

Para 1. Nature of the KC > Count > Dispute (Note 1) > Sourcing > Recipients

Para 2. Sourcing > Dispute > Sourcing

Para 3. List > (Dispute) > List

Not saying what's proposed below is perfect but IMO the sequencing is cleaner (and its para 4 might be cleaner if the last couple of sentences were made a hatnote):

Para 1. Nature of the KC > Recipients.

Para 2. (+Sourcing) > Count > Sourcing

Para 3. Dispute (including Note 1)

Para 4. List > (Dispute) > List

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, good suggestion, please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That feels clearer. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are three paragraphs in the lead, and the topic of "dispute" is in Note 1 for the first para, and in the body of the second and third paragraph.

• restructured lead, see above MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the paragraphs should be restructured along the lines of:

Background:

• Omit explicit naming of the second and subsequent enactments (but keep the date). Readers who care can always look at the main article for the exact decree.

• done although the names of the various enactments have been deleted from the Knight's Cross article MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand on Fellgeibel and Scherzer's works here.
• To reduce the quantity of italics, for the higher grades perhaps either elide the Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes text in the German translation, eg: "(...mit Eichenlaub)", or omit the translation entirely (they're at the main article).

• implemented first suggestion MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients:

• Were lists not kept for the Reichsarbeitsdienst, the Volkssturm, and the foreign recipients? If they were but they're just inapplicable for this list, then the sentence can be simplified further, and "Other: 0 0" should be added to the box. Otherwise, change "lists, one for each of the three military branches, Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy), Luftwaffe (Air Force) and for the Waffen-SS." to "lists for each of the three military branches and for the Waffen-SS.", as it repeats the lead and is obvious from context.
• Can the "According to Scherzer as" boilerplate be cut down to "(Scherzer)" at the end? Why isn't Scherzer main and Fellgeibel secondary?

• see my commentary on the top of this review request MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the serial for the Oak Leaves, etc, be removed?

• I prefer not to. First, number is part of the official citation, second, it helps the interested reader navigate to the right entry in the respective listing MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move text from the lead re name sorting and rank listed here.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a way to reduce the width of the Date column? There's a lot of dead space.

• no action taken MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Units are written in German. Should these use English translations where possible, particularly where the en-wiki article uses a translated name (eg: 4th Army, 6th Panzer Division)? If you do keep the German naming convention (and it adds friction to reading if you do), then the text of Note 2 should instead appear above the list.

• Please advise, currently we have a mixed bag of articles on Wikipedia, some using their German names, such as Nachtjagdgeschwader 1, and some use the English translation, such as 6th Panzer Division. Previously, uniformity was required, I can do either. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:COMMONNAME applies and consistency matters to some degree, both across articles and within. Currently the latter is met but not the former. As a lay reader I find it a bit of an irritant (I missed the Note 2 location on my way down). Question: given that WP can't be used as more than a pointer to sources, what benefit/advantage is there in using the German form? Again, not going to push, but if it does happen to be retained, it should be as a deliberate choice. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Where there are higher awards, can these be put in the Date column instead of Notes? Eg:

30 September 1939
• Oak Leaves: 25 February 1942
• Swords: 18 July 1942

• I think this might impact sorting by date of the presentation. I would prefer to leave this in the Notes column MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, fair enough (if they were to have been incorporated then 25 February 1942 (Oak Leaves) would have been better)^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref K.e.coffman's post, although it would be better if there were an independent source for Prof Seidler's quote or equivalent endorsement(s), presumably he hasn't repudiated the claim, and the endorsement is an expert one.

Not 100% sure why the ping but no matter at all. My earlier comments re KCs were in regard to permanent micro stubs for otherwise completely non notable recipients which I believe must only be redirects to encyclopedic lists like this one. So if that is now happening then excellent.

I have only skimmed the paragraphs and put up front that I have no knowledge of the subject, but yes they do possibly give the appearance of some slight POV. Certainly at least the statement For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, but it has now been superseded by Scherzer's work. would appear to definitely need an independent (of all parties) reliable informed and researched secondary source to back it up. If this cannot be done then perhaps some more serious issues but I just do not know.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: At this time without extensive corrections.
• Comments: The comments by K.e.coffman are logical, in-depth, and I agree with them. I am not as concerned with "official" or "lawful" listings as I am accurate, or as accurately presented as possible by reliable sources, following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including NPOV.
• 1)- A list being inclusive of every name found, that includes names where there is "sketchy", as well as questionable information, even from the sources listed, does not serve a real purpose.
• 2)- All the blue links; that redirect back to the same list, as possibly reasoning to not have a page full of red links, is unnecessary and a distraction. Highlight the names but not redirect a name on a list ---back to the same list. This serves no purpose at all for non-notable subjects and especially for subjects being included when the source admits the names are questionable.

• 3)- Red links: If there is a possibility that a future article will be created on a subject then red links serve a purpose. If there are red links, awaiting a redirect back to this list, and there is more than a remote possibility that the subject will never have a stand-alone article, more especially if a name is one of those "questionable", take the red link out. It serves no purpose.

• 4)- As for as including questionable names: The article states; "This along with the ? (question mark) indicates that historian Veit Scherzer has expressed doubt regarding the veracity and formal correctness of the listing.", yet he included the questionable names anyway. This is clear evidence that at the very least these names should not be "in the list" but maybe placed in a subsection, in prose, stating the accuracy of inclusion is questioned by the source. Other than that option, there is no reason to include the names in the list, that the source questions, just because that source decided not to exclude them. There are names on a list, that might have been included falsely, but because a source decides to include them anyway is not justification that we should follow suit.
  • I disagree. Because these names are listed in various sources on KC winners, they need to be dealt with here. They may or may not be worthy of a separate article, but the lists are the appropriate place to discuss the "unofficial" awardees and the circumstances of the award.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 5)- "Notes" that all state either: According to Thomas and Wegmann, According to Scherzer or, According to Fellgiebel, serves what purpose? It looks bad. If the content is attributed to a reliable source, not being a direct quote, then there is an abundance of repeated attribution that is just clutter. If there is some mandate I am not aware of, or some consensus rationale that these words ("According to") have to be added to every single entry, I have an issue with this. Unless there is some reasoning to use this as some presented evidence that it is not OR, which is not at all needed, then it should not be included. Hell, if that is something so important to keep stating these things, put notes attributing that all the content is derived from the sources listed so are "According to" those references. Whew! It was stated "There is an extensive list of notes at the bottom, which is unfortunate, but cannot be avoided if the article is to be maintained as a "list". This just seems far and away "overkill". This justification is questionable. Otr500 (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Director note – I can't say that I'm an expert about what sources for Nazis are reliable, but I do know something about Wikipedia discussions and this looks like canvassing for opposition to this FLC. K.e.coffman, please consider removing that from the RS noticeboard, because if you don't, us closers will have to make some difficult decisions about whether to discount any opposes that might come after that message was posted. Also, and this should go without saying, please refrain from making any such posts in the future. If you're doing notifications, it's better to make them to more people; for example, you could contact the Military WikiProject and ask for somebody there to comment on the sources. They're quite active, so there's a good chance someone will come here. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Objection: I am not part of any possible Removal campaign, certainly not part of ANY intended or unintended canvassing actually advocating for this list, as the Germans should have just as much right to have hero's as the rest of the world, and my concerns are valid. If this article is to be elevated it should deserve it, and as it is I do not feel this has been accomplished. If there are comments concerning my reasoning then this would be the place for those, not a place to make it appear I am part of a conspiracy, even if by accident.

To me this is serious (although the point is valid), so please move this entire discussion to some other area, unless there is some intended implication concerning me. If this "just happened" then move it, and with my permission someone can move this objection with the comments and hide it. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I object the notion of a campaign or even a "conspiracy", that is being ventilated here, altogether. This appears to be a way to delegitimate concerns by commenting on the contributors instead on the content. For matters of precision, we are talking about the heroes of Nazi Germany. The Germans do have "heroes" nowadays, but it happens to be that those are not the KC recipients.--Assayer (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not about anything you did, Otr or Assayer, and I have no issue if Pres decides to put them on the FLC's talk page (I'd probably be considered involved at this point). Please AGF about my comments, which were meant to protect FLC as a whole from issues that can lead to a bad reputation. Obviously, we don't want to discourage comments from a wide base of editors; I wish the rest of the FLCs had this much activity, as it would make our jobs easier. I just didn't believe that was the best way to bring in participants. Since the original issue was resolved a while back, please continue debating the article's merits, while I go off to take in some football (American, that is). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for separating your comments from mine. As for assuming good faith I did that times 10. I could see no reason why such comments would be "attached" to mine, under a heading Comments by otr500, that certainly seem to indicate I was at least one object of the comments. Twice I used words like "even if by accident" and "If this "just happened". It still caused consternation as I searched for reasoning as to what I may have done. Otr500 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Franz_Bäke.jpgshould use one of the Bundesarchiv tags

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:BmRKEL.jpg should include a tag for the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Giants2008, for the vote of confidence in the Milhist coordinators. I have reviewed the sources cited in this article, and in other articles. As a MilHist coordinator, I've participated in and/or watched the discussion of these sources over time. As a professional historian, I know that sources are not "pure".... records are established by the powers that be, maintained for one reason or another, and are notoriously uneven, especially during wartime or moments of human, meteorological, and other disaster. Sometimes we have to read "against" the source, which means using a source to extract information it was not originally intended to provide. Sometimes the source does not provide as much information as we would like. Sometimes the information the sources provide is uneven. Sometimes the sources disagree. I find the original objections to Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgeibel bordering on spurious and consequently counter productive to the smooth operation of Wikipedia, and the Milhist project. These sources examined the information that was available and made reasonable extractions of data. Their work in a federal archive was sponsored by or accepted by federal agencies that, if they were British, Australian, Canadian or American, would be accepted, widely disseminated, and viewed as positive contributions to historical understanding of the period. As for overkill on notations, this stems, I believe, from one reviewer's (IMO) biased objection to the subject, awards which he/she has in the past called hagiography. (Just a note here: if we reject all articles based on the notion of hagiography, then we should omit most of the Napoleonic awards, and the entire catalog of saints.) Subsequent annotations by MrB were, I believe, his conscientious effort to meet with kecoffman's demands. We have had this discussion ad infinitum in Milhist. Articles were adjusted to the satisfaction of the milhist coordinators by the editor(s). One editor continues to revert the articles to a version of history that fits his or her own world view. In my view, this is obstructionist and in defiance of Wikipedia standards. As a project, we have tried to understand, and adapt to one reviewer's demands--these were demands, not suggestions. Sturmvogel pointed out above an example of this (the use of the ? to represent the names one source suggests might be questionable). There are some issues re smooth text, but I believe these stem from the editor's efforts to meet unreasonable and escalating demands. I will be happy to work with Mr.B to resolve these issues, but the sources stand. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly accept your support and input, Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntieruth55: Leaving aside the commonplaces about sources there are a few issues here which prompt some questions.

• These sources examined the information that was available and made reasonable extractions of data. It is well established among historians that any information to be gained depends upon the questions asked and that these questions are never neutral. Thus, to come to a proper assessment of the value of Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgiebel as sources we need to know what their questions and intentions were. Otherwise it it not possible to describe either their strengths or their shortcomings. Isn't it true that they based their works mainly, if not exclusively on certain German official documents such as personal files and files directly related to the award? How do you know that the "information that was available" was examined and that the extractions were "reasonable"? Wouldn't it be fair to assume that Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgiebel edited just the sources they felt to be useful to answer their particular questions and that it is therefore of vital importance to describe their, in Wikipedian terms, POV? Christian Hartmann, e.g., one of the most respected German military historians, spoke of these works as "galleries of heroes" (Heldengalerien) and thought they were useful for prosopograpy.
• Their work in a federal archive was sponsored by or accepted by federal agencies that, if they were British, Australian, Canadian or American, would be accepted, widely disseminated, and viewed as positive contributions to historical understanding of the period. That comment really struck me and raised a couple of questions: Which federal agencies "sponsored" or otherwise actively supported the work of these authors in a federal archive and how? What kind of evidence do you have for that claim? There may be a misunderstanding, but does "they were British,..." refer to Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgiebel or to the federal agencies? In any case, what does nationality have to do with that? Would you suggest that Hartmann's judgement is somehow shaped by his national outlook and not by his critical reading of heroic myths and hero worshipping (which he supports with a reference to a British historian working on T.E. Lawrence)?
• On a side note if we reject all articles based on the notion of hagiography, then we should omit most of the Napoleonic awards, and the entire catalog of saints. That statement confuses the popular usage of the term describing an utterly positive, uncriticial description of a person with the mainly medieval genre of hagiography. Of course not every biography of a saint needs to be hagiographic by popular definition, whereas any biography can degenerate to such a hagiography if it becomes uncritical.--Assayer (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• of course it's ridiculous re the strict notion of hagiography. That is the point. If these individuals were not part of the Third Reich, we wouldn't be having this discuss. The hagiography argument has been levied at this list up and down the line. I think it's an illegitimate argument
• Nationality has everything to do with the argument over these sources, at least it was so raised and/or implied during other discussions. The point was that Thomas Scherzer and Fellgiebel were looking at German sources, specifically relating to the Nazi period, and a reviewer objected to using them to build a hagiographic structure to the awards given to men during in World War II.
• It seems to me that the important points are these:

1. the sources for Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgiebel exist in a Federal archive and are governed by Law on the Preservation and Use of Federal Archival Documents (Bundesarchivgesetz - BArchG) of 6 January 1988 (BGBl. I S. 62), as amended at last by the Freedom of Information Law of 5 September 2005 (BGBl. I S. 2722). Applicants wishing to use these archives must provide a written and detailed description of what, how, when, why, etc.
2. Consequently, research in a German federal archive is regulated that is, you have to sign various permissions and obtain approvals to conduct research in an archive, pursuant to (Bundesarchiv-Benutzungsverordnung - BArchBV) of 29th October, 1993 (German Federal Law Gazette I p. 1857)
3. One of the problems with examining the Nazi era are still associated with the atrocities committed. This list is simply a list of people who received a specific award. The secondary sources examine the primary sources that provide that information. Some of the information, particularly toward the end of the war when the Germany was falling apart, is murky. The secondary sources tried to cut through some of the murkiness; the list is, as the secondary sources have said, as complete and reliable as the primary sources allow. auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. The German Federal Archives are open to the public. Everyone has the right to examine files archived at the Federal Archives. It is true that you have to file a request, but it is a short form and not much different from what you are required to do if you want to register at the US National Archives. In that respect research in any archive is regulated. As in the US certain files are restricted and classified in Germany (under the BArchG) , particularly personal files (for 30 years after the death of a person or 110 years after birth, if the date of death is not known). If you plan to use those files, you have to file a seperate request. (see the BArch homepage for details) That's all. If that's what you mean by "sponsored" or "accepted", then about every research in the German Federal Archives dealing with German history from at least the Weimar Republic onwards is "sponsored" or "accepted" by some "federal agencies". That seems pointless to me. The issue is still mentioned in the introductions of further lists: Scherzer wrote his book in cooperation with the German Federal Archives.

Some of the secondary sources mentioned did not only list the people who received a specific award (particularly Thomas/Wegmann), but ventured to provide biographical information and pictures. So they can be both hagiographic (e.g., Franz Thomas & Erwin Lenfeld: Die Eichenlaubträger, 1983) and reliable on certain issues at the same time, but above you were referring to articles based on the notion of hagiography. Speaking of this list I find it troubling, however, to heap indiscriminate praise on the sources ("masterpiece", see below) or list clearly uncritical, even propagandistic works as "Further reading" (see question regarding Krätschmer below)--Assayer (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I strongly disagree with pretty much everything that has been said in criticism of this list (and the rest of these lists), and am in agreement with auntieruth and Sturmvogel 66's comments. This list (and the others) are comprehensive and have the right level of detail. They compare and contrast the two main sources in such a way as to ensure that details are not lost. Other than some tweaking of the notes for concision (in ways already identified above, which isn't a significant issue IMO), the only real issue I can see that is worthy of a partial rewording is the second paragraph of the lead. It should be written in a way that doesn't weigh the sources in Wikipedia's voice, but still explains the historiography of these award lists, supported by direct quotations from the people who have been mentioned as praising Scherzer's work. You'll need to check my translations, but I suggest something along these lines:

These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book, [Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) [The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945]. Fellgiebel was a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, and was also the former chairman and head of the order commission of the AKCR. In 1996, a second edition of this book was published with an addendum delisting 11 of the recipients. In 2007, Veit Scherzer published his [Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) [The Knight's Cross Bearers 1939–1945 The Holders of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 by Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Allied Forces with Germany According to the Documents of the Federal Archives]. Scherzer's book was compiled from documents held by the German Federal Archives, and cast doubt on 193 of the listings in Fellgiebel's 1996 book. The majority of the disputed recipients were listed as having received the award in 1945, when the deteriorating situation of the Third Reich during the final days of World War II left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process.^[3] Scherzer's book has been described as a "masterpiece" by Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler of the Bundeswehr University Munich, and as an "indispensable reference book" by a section head of the Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), the Wehrmacht records repository.^[4][5]

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• good suggestion, done with minor change. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Since you strongly disagree with pretty much everything that has been said in criticism of this list I may reiterate my criticism that Scherzer's work cannot be evaluated by a selection of quotes from private letters put together by the author himself (who also happens to be the publisher) to promote his book. Could you please explain why you discard that criticism in respect to WP:RS and WP:NPOV and why you support the inclusion of such quotes ("masterpiece")? Would you, on the other hand, support the inclusion of some information about Seidler, who has a certain reputation among historian's in the field? --Assayer (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inappropriate. What would be appropriate (for balance) would be a review of Scherzer's book that actually criticised it on substantive grounds. I haven't seen that here, though. Including criticism of a reviewer of a book used as a source is nothing short of "mission creep" aimed at undermining the source without actually contributing to the list or the discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's review processes (and MILHIST's for that matter) are by no means perfect, relying on a range of circumstances / conditions to be met if they are to be effective (e.g. the availability of knowledgeable editors willing to volunteer their time etc). As such any additional scrutiny of our articles is a welcome thing and usually results in their overall improvement. To be sure the recent attention articles / lists like this have received has allowed a number of potential issues to be identified and addressed which might otherwise not been picked up by non-specialists such as myself. That said I am concerned that the systematic way this scrutiny has been applied only to a subset of our articles may have a detrimental effect, potentially implying that this is not a valid field / topic of study when the opposite is true. We of course need articles on both "good" and "bad" people in equal measure (not that one can generalise and say all German service personnel of a certain era fell into one or other category anyway). Whilst I think some of the criticism listed above is valid, much of it is not and arguably represents the personal standards of the reviewer and not the FA criteria. In regards to this list:

1. I do not think it is hagiographic.
2. The awards identified as being in doubt should remain on the list for completeness of record. It has not been established beyond doubt that they were not made, and there does not appear to be consensus in the sources (which seem to list the awards anyway). As such all we can do is list them also and acknowledge any discrepancies where they exist (as the list currently does). It is not up to us to say that one source is right and another is wrong, as long as both meet the requirements of WP:RS (unless of course they are obviously out of date, and the state of the historiography can be shown by other RS to have moved on since publication etc). No doubt many of our readers would be looking for these names anyway, and their inclusion here with an explanation of the discrepancy seems of obvious value to anyone interested in the topic.
3. The original wording used in the opening paragraphs did need some work (along the lines of PeaceMaker’s suggestions, AustralianRupert and others); however, these changes mostly seem to have occurred now.
4. At any rate some of the issues identified seem likely to have been due to compromises required in order to address previous critiques, and to me MB has had a very difficult task reconciling what is often conflicting / contradictory advice from many different editors (given in good faith).
5. My only criticism is that already identified in regards to the overuse of the phrase "according to X" in the notes. These could be re-written for brevity and to remove repetitive prose etc.
6. Support - overall, this is a comprehensive, well reference, and well presented list. Anotherclown (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

addressed criticism "according to X" as suggested by Hydronium Hydroxide thank you for the review MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This removal raises a question on how to present controversial information and sources (see also Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)#Ernst-Günther Krätschmer. Ernst-Günther Krätschmer was a former SS-Obersturmführer and author of Die Ritterkreuzträger der Waffen-SS [The Knight's Cross Bearers of the Waffen-SS]. The book was published with Nation Europa Verlag, a right wing publisher. Scherzer in his analysis of the recipients of KC also consulted this reference. You will find reference to how Scherzer used this book in the disputed commentary on Friedrich Blond. My question, is it legitimate to point the readers of Wikipedia to this book? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, whether User:Dapi89 wanted to comment on Krätschmer or on the list, so I'll squeeze my comment in between. Krätschmer was a regular contributor to the magazine of the HIAG. His book, first published in 1955 with a preface by Paul Hausser and still in print, is mainly based upon Nazi sources. It is still used and cited by historians, but renowned for its apologetic and uncritical approach. I would not recommend that for further reading. --Assayer (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. As per my first post and subsequent comments from those supportive of promotion. Dapi89 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the overall tone of the discourse, I do not find mentioning of me by name, while not addressing comments by other contributors who have voiced similar concerns, to be helpful. Furthermore, invoking consensus within one particular project is not conducive to smooth running of the overall project (Wikipedia). I believe that such WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-based arguments should be discounted by the FL project coordinators. Related to that, the edits I have implemented in the past re: this and other lists have been rejected specifically because the discussion had taken place within the MilHist project: "As a general note, a discussion at a wikiproject does not supersede consensus on an article itself for content issues" (link) I concur with this sentiment. Often issues like this get clarified when they are brought in front of non-specialist editors.

• "Sometimes we have to read "against" the source…" — This statement seems to describe WP:OR: "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". As I understand it, Wikipedia is a not a place to publish original research by “extracting information the source has not intended to provide”. WP:RS and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES guidelines specify that the articles should be based on reliable sources so that “that no original research is needed to extract the content.”

In this case, the nom states that three sources have attempted to address the topic. One (not under consideration here) is Seemen which pre-dates Fellgiebel. Fellgiebel is not independent of the topic and represents the current view of the Association of the Knight’s Cross Recipients. The last source is Scherzer (for which I actually advocated above to be the primary source in this article), but it’s still a self-published source.

So we have a combination of “not-quite-there” sources and non-notable names (over 75%), which to me amounts to indiscriminate amount of information based on original research, if editor AntiRuth suggests this is what’s happening here. I would also note that de.wiki does not have such lists, only a list of the Oak Leaves recipients, the higher grade award. The issue would probably be easier to resolve if sister projects have had such lists. The KC recipients have been actively discussed on de.wiki (for example here: "Self-published source"), so I assume de.wiki doesn't have such lists not because they have simply not got around to it.

Also of note is that the format of the lists evolved under the assumption that all Knight's Cross recipients were notable. The expectation was (I assume, due to the red links originally present in the article) that pages for all of them would eventually be created, or that perhaps some amount of OR was acceptable. Per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients (permalink), certain recipients were deemed non-notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. Thus the project-specific consensus on how the list information should be presented may be dated itself.

• "As for overkill on notations, this stems, I believe, from one reviewer's (IMO) biased objection to the subject (…) Subsequent annotations by MrB were, I believe, his conscientious effort to meet with kecoffman's demands.": This statement does not appear to be accurate as the format for this and other lists had been set before I became an editor in late 2015. For example, the next list in the series, "Bn-Bz", underwent a MilHist A-class review in 2014, and is currently in the same format as the list under discussion when it was nominated (reviewed version). Unless “one reviewer” is someone other than myself—? Re: “Kecoffman’s demands”, please help me understand which demands are being discussed here.

• "Their work in a federal archive was sponsored by or accepted by federal agencies…" — Sources that describe the work by Fellgiebel and Scherzer to have been accepted by federal agencies would be useful. If this is indeed the case, then I might reevaluate. The article states nothing on this re Fellgiebel, while mentioning that Scherzer's work was based on archival documents, but not "sponsored" or "accepted". Being included in a library of a research institution is nothing unusual. The article then states that Fellgiebel’s list is based on the acceptance of the AKCR’s “order commission”, without providing details on this entity. As of yet, it’s not been clarified whether or not the commission had any official status or that the results of its work have been accepted by federal agencies, to what extend, in which timeframe and whether this acceptance is still on-going. More clarity here will be helpful.

• Similarly, "academic acceptance" — No sources to this effect have been provided, apart for the self-cited endorsement by "Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler of the Bundeswehr University Munich". The article does not mention that, by the time Scherzer's work came out, Seidler had been retired from the University for 9 year. The endorsement is a somewhat dubious distinction as Seidler, following his retirement in 1998, began publishing works of a revisionist nature in extreme right-wing publishers such as Pour le Mérite Verlag [de], “distancing himself from serious historical research”. The PDF linked below offers similar endorsements, including from an anon user of the internet forum www.das-ritterkreuz.de, identified as "Ulrich": "I think it will be a Bible, in the best sense!" Etc.

If Seidler's is the best endorsement that Scherzer was able to secure, this again speaks to a low interest in the topic of the Knight’s Cross recipients from German historians, and hence the general public, and the correspondingly contradictory sources so that we have to "read against them".

• "As a project, we have tried to understand, and adapt to one reviewer's demands--these were demands, not suggestions" — could the editor please clarify what this is referring to? Is this about me, or another editor? This statement is unclear to me as I’ve not participated in reviews of KC lists before this one.

• Many substantive comments and concerns remain unaddressed, such as:

• Why is Fellgiebel primary, and Scherzer secondary? Is Fellgiebel's data superior? If so, how?
• If Scherzer's work is based on archival records, what is the purpose of "comparing-and-contrasting" with Fellgiebel for minute details such "Commander of SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 6 "Theodor Eicke"" vs "Commander of SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment "Theodor Eicke""
• Likewise, what is the purpose of having two citations where both sources agree on the information?
• Copy is still promotional for Scherzer's work, with self-cited praise and an endorsement from an anon "department head".
• Notes continue to be excessive (please also see for additional suggestions below).

Add'l suggestions/comments"

• Suggest that the “Who-killed-JFK”-style notes in the Notes section be streamlined. As currently in the article:

• "No evidence of the award can be found in the German Federal Archives. Von Seeman stated that the tradition club of the 9. Panzer-Division informed him of the presentation of the Knight's Cross to Ludwig Bauer in 1954.^[6] (...) The receipt of a nomination by his unit with the Heerespersonalamt (HPA—Army Staff Office) or the Außenstelle of the Heerespersonalamt (HPA/A—Branch of the Army Staff Office) cannot be verified. (...) Also, the responsible official at the time would have deferred the nomination from Heeresgruppe B after its capitulation after 17 April according to AHA 44 Ziff. 572. (...) A statement provided by the first scribe of the 9. Panzer-Division from 1957 to the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR) is inconclusive..."

Does Scherzer goes much further than this in the book, or are these verbatim notes as they appear in Scherzer’s book?

Suggest rewording along these lines:

• "No evidence of the award can be found in the German Federal Archives. A lawful presentation was unlikely as the nomination remained unprocessed with the N Army. However, Association of Knight's Cross Recipients accepted X as a recipient".

Where a lawful presentation is possible, this can be stated as:

• No evidence of the award can be found in the German Federal Archives. However, a lawful presentation was possible through the chain of command of the N Army. Association of Knight's Cross Recipients accepted X as a recipient".

One brief paragraph should be sufficient.

• Suggest removing copy & note relating to the "last bestowal" since this is disputed: "...on 17 June 1945. Großadmiral and President of Germany Karl Dönitz, Hitler's successor as Head of State (Staatsoberhaupt) and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, had ordered the cessation of all promotions and awards as of 11 May 1945 (Dönitz-decree..." etc. This can be addressed in the main article.
• Wrong Karl Barth and Joachim Bauer are being linked.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest removing the honorifics as superfluous. This will also reduce the amounts of notes, such as:

• The brackets around the doctor title [Dr.] denotes that the academic title was attained after the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded.

• not done as they reflect Scherzer's presentation style MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest removing translations throughout as they are still distracting; interested readers can click on the link:

• Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (... mit Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten)

• implemented suggestion made by Hydronium Hydroxide MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest rewording "Up to 7,321 awards were made..." to " Up to 7,321 awards may have been made..." due to the absence of an official list. Alternatively, this can be phrased as: "More than 7,000 awards were made..."

• done "Up to 7,321 awards may have been made..." MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar to Hydronium Hydroxide, suggest removing the numerical numbers for the Oak Leaves and related discussion, for consideration of concision. Likewise, suggest moving the discussion of sources into the Background section, if it's needed at all.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A minor issue that I mention for matters of clarification: I assume de.wiki doesn't have such lists not because they have simply not got around to it. That's not the case. There are six such lists, most notable are de:Liste der Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes der U-Boot-Waffe and de:Liste der Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes der Jagdflieger. The issue is still controversial, but so far those lists have not been nominated for deletion. The latter was nominated for promotion, but that did not come about, mainly indeed because of the sources used. These lists were compiled almost exclusively by a single editor who has been blocked indefinitely some time later, because his work was in general problematic and not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Noone has cared to resume his lists. --Assayer (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I meant that de.wiki does not have the flat, alphabetical lists for all 7,000+ recipients. In addition to the series, of which the list under consideration is a part of, en.wiki has many other KC recipient lists, 65 in total. Please see: Category:Lists of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you won't find the comments about you helpful to your cause, K.e.Coffman.

Some editors, including you, feel they are the gate keeper on Wikipedia. The problem that five/six or so editors have with your actions and comments here is that you appear to be going out of your way to make it impossible for this article to achieve promotion. Having gone through this latest list of objections, they seem, as ever, rooted in assumption and opinion. As noted by three others, it seems to be another list of unreasonable demands. Dapi89 (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dapi89. Much of what has been discussed here is a regurgitation of a previously resolved conversation on Milhist regarding this (and similar lists) and the sources. Most of us have a wealth of things to do re wikipedia and other concerns, and would prefer not to rehash the old argument. Again, I support this nomination. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as this delegate can tell, actionable comments have been actioned, and there's a consensus to promote this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

I believe that this review is being closed prematurely.

Re: ”a regurgitation of a previously resolved conversation on Milhist”; "As a project, we have tried to understand, and adapt to one reviewer's demands--these were demands, not suggestions…" — please point these past discussions out so that reviewers can understand what this past consensus was based on.

Separately, the editor appears to conflate me with another reviewer who took part in past reviews, and then dismiss comments at this review because (I paraphrase) “we have been through this before”. I don’t believe that’s how the reviews, especially at a Featured level, are supposed to work. Moreover, as I pointed out, this consensus (if any) is (1) project-specific; (2) dated; and (3) the matter does not appear to be resolved going by the comments above.

To reiterate, many substantive questions, relating to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, remain unaddressed. For easier response, I’ve summarised them below. These questions are pretty straightforward, so it should not take that much time by the nom and / or the support voters to respond:

1. Why is Fellgiebel primary, and Scherzer secondary? Is Fellgiebel's data superior? If so, how?
2. What is the AKCR’s “order commission”? Has it had any official status?
3. Has Scherzer’s and/or Fellgiebel’s work been accepted by federal agencies, to what extent, in which timeframe and is this acceptance (if any) still on-going?
4. Since Scherzer's work is based on archival records, what is the purpose of "comparing-and-contrasting" with Fellgiebel / Thomas & Wegman / Seemen for minute details such "Commander of SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 6 "Theodor Eicke"" vs "Commander of SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment "Theodor Eicke”?
5. Content in the section Disputed by Scherzer should be streamlined. The “who-killed-JFK” style notes are excessive detail outside of the scope of an encyclopedia article. A related question: does Scherzer goes much further than this in the book, or are these verbatim notes as they appear in Scherzer’s book?
6. What is the purpose of the section Discrepancies in sources? This appears immaterial and / or original research based on less-than-reliable sources that are being “read against". This looks problematic, and questions about such notes have not bee addressed.
7. Likewise, what is the purpose of having two citations where both sources agree on the information?
8. Do the nom and the support voters consider it appropriate to include self-cited praise from a retired professor with a questionable POV (“masterpiece”) and an anonymous “section head"? Should the article then include praise from anon forum users (“Bible!”) which also appears in Scherzer’s PDF?

Some additional comments are still open above, but these are the key questions that remain unaddressed either by the nom or the support voters.

@Giants2008: I do not see that actionable comments have been addressed and that consensus has been achieved. I'm also concerned about what could be perceived as a coordinated action in re: support for this list; please see this discussion: "We need to deal with this".

K.e.coffman (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to count here, because this is a somewhat messy FLC with the vast amount of commentary and it's easy to miss a bolded support or oppose vote. From my count, there were five supporters and two opposers at the time of promotion. It's a borderline case either way, and I trust TRM to deliver a reasonable decision; I'm not inclined to overturn his promotion of the list. Regarding your last sentence, it seems like they're complaining about an issue in whatever dispute you have going on, not canvassing for support here. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to post at FLC talk; the bot will come around to close this FLC soon, and no edits should be made here after that happens. We really shouldn't be editing here now, but I saw this after coming home from work and thought it merited a quick response. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [9].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, here to nominate what I believe to be some of my best work here on Wikipedia. The last nomination in early 2016 failed due to a lack of comments, as well as a couple niggling issues which have since been resolved. Throughout Bermuda's history, hurricanes have played a rather large role in its development and identity, and I'm confident that this is the single most comprehensive resource on Bermuda's hurricane impacts to be found anywhere. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The prose is spot on, which the exception of the opening sentence.

• many of which have caused significant damage and influenced the territory's development. - this could be tighter, such as - many of which inflicted significant damage and influenced the territory's development."

Good work Julian. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the kind words and support! I've made the suggested change. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support a comprehensive, well-written list. Just one note though--the Bermuda landfalls map needs alt text like the rest. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and reminder. Added alt text. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The British Overseas Territory of Bermuda has a long record of encounters with Atlantic tropical cyclones". I would prefer "a long history".
• "typical belt of recurving tropical cyclones" I have not come across "recurving" before. I assume it means cyclones which double back on themselves, but a link or a few words of explanation would be helpful.
• "baroclinic enhancement" This links to Baroclinity, but I did not find there an explanation of baroclinic enhancement.
• "As such, hurricane-related deaths are uncommon throughout the history of the territory." I would prefer something like "As a result, hurricane-related deaths have been uncommon since the early eighteenth century."
• "Described as a "horde of ships" by Master Joseph Hinson of the schooner Chapman, vessels in the crowded harbour violently collide with one another." I don't think this sentence works. Perhaps "There are violent collisions between vessels, described as a "horde of ships" by Master Joseph Hinson of the schooner Chapman, in the crowded harbour."
• "Force 11 winds are reported on the outer fringes of a distant hurricane." No change needed, but if one below the Beaufort maximum was recorded on the distant fringes, what might the force have been near the centre?
  • Force 12 (64+ knots) is actually the minimum threshold for "hurricane" intensity - a Category 3 major hurricane would have winds of at least 100 kt, or Force 16 on the extended Beaufort scale. I'm not totally married to describing winds in terms of the Beaufort scale, if you think it's confusing or a little pretentious. I only use it a few times, anyway. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "20 to 30 ft (6.1 to 9.1 m)" Figures rounded to the nearest ten should not be converted to one decimal place.
• I found the use of the present tense in the list very irritating, but the article is otherwise first rate. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to read through and leave your suggestions! I used present tense for consistency with most of the similar FLs (List of New Jersey hurricanes, List of South America tropical cyclones, List of Florida hurricanes (2000–present), etc.) but I'm always open to changing it if there's a consensus to do so. Everything else has been fixed, I believe. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

That might be the longest string of ref callbacks I've seen- a through bl. Anyways:

• Formatting: you had an unhyphenated ISBN-10, which I've fixed to an ISBN-13; also, no need to include incorporation marks in company names otherwise we'd be awash in Ltd, Co, Inc, etc. The standard is also usually "last, first", but I suppose there's no harm in leaving it "first last".
• Spotchecks: no problems found

Source review passed. Promoting. --PresN 00:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Against is an American rock band, known for their political activism and social justice inspired lyrics. After a peer review, I feel this list now meets FL criteria. Have at it! Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Cheetah (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Infobox image caption is a fragment so no need for the full stop. "... recorded The Black Market, their most recent album. The Black Market reached ..." repetitive. " 7" vinyl" is linked on its second occurrence. Were all singles released in all those territories? Same for promotional singles. Ref titles should really use en-dash not em-dash. That's all, frankly I struggled to find much to complain about! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Done everything except the single territories. Honestly, I don't know if all the singles were released outside the United States, and I don't know how I would find out that information. I just followed the standard convention of discography articles. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Then I would add "... or was not released in that territory...." to the latter tables. That would suffice for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Done. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great job with the article! I cannot find anything that needs correction. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – About the only nit-pick I can come up with is that the em dashes in the titles of refs 6, 10, 17–21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36–41, 43, 45, 47–49, 52–53, and 57 should be made into smaller en dashes instead, and ref 56 has hyphens that should be converted into en dashes as well. Other than that, the list looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, The Rambling Man said that those ref titles should use em-dash. Not sure which one to go with, so I'll just ping him. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said Ref titles should really use en-dash not em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry about that, got ahead of myself. Anyway, Giants2008, the ref titles now include en-dash instead of em-dash. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I gave you an assist on the dashes, and now I think the list meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting looks good, except for ref 42 where you had a multi-part ref with no header line (and only one bullet point, but that makes sense in context, especially for an ongoing band)
• Spotchecks: 6, 17, 29, 46, 55 - all clean
• No concerns about not using appropriate sources.

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 16:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list is in the same format as two wildlife trust FLCs, Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and London Wildlife Trust. Essex is especially interesting because it has a number of internationally important wetland sites on its coast. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Something that may have cropped up before, you have "Scheduled Monument" (both caps) whereas our article seems to exclusively use "scheduled monument"... Similarly for LNRs. Wikipedia is random whether it prefers upper or lower case - lower for sm and lnr, upper for SSSI, SAC and SPA. I think it is better to be consistent, and as these are designations rather than noun phrases, I prefer caps. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "medflats" mudflats? Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "fuel and construction and bark" and and... Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] " south and mid Essex" should that be "south- and mid-Essex"? Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] " the 400 hectare" hyphenate and convert. Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "at 0.8 hectares" convert. Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Link Essex and Suffolk Water. Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "which is one of the key wetland sites in Europe" [according to whom?] Description revised. "such as skylarks[10]" full stop missing. Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "while Essex Wildlife Trust " while EWT... Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Any reason for the Not available size? It is missing on the EWT page for the site, and I have not found any other source which refers specifically to the area managed by the EWT. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "out of which over 40 " more than 40. Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] " 2.4 kilometres (1.5 mi) linear " use the adj=on parameter here. Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] "Over 230 plant... "More than 230..." Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thanks very much for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very nice FLC, Dudley Miles. The previous reviewer hit most of the core issues so there's not much for me to comment on. Beyond that, as a routine check, Earwig shows low probability of copyvio and W3C finds no deadlinks. All data in table is sourced to RS. Images are (a) lavish, (b) appropriate, and (c) correctly licensed. Layout is compelling, interesting, and easy to follow. Overall a great job! LavaBaron (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your kind words LavaBaron. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This nomination caught my eye while transcluding my own nomination. Overall, this is a well-polished and informative list, and I have no concerns at all about the depth or accuracy of the content. I've read through the descriptions and only noticed a few minor things that could potentially be improved, as listed below...

• As of 2016, it has... - 2017 now, so this should either be updated or changed to past tense.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• of any English county - maybe a pipelink to Counties of England?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was unfamiliar with the term "coppicing" until just now. Could use a link.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• wintering wigeon - should wigeon be plural like the other common names?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• there many species on the saltmarsh - missing word somewhere.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• drainage ditches and two ponds have a rich aquatic life - I don't think the "a" is needed.

• It sounds better to me with the "a" left in. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Juliancolton many thanks for your review and support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "which was established in 1961; Its visitor centre...". Don't think "Its" should be capitalized here.

  Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Very minor, but citation 6 could use a period after p. for consistency with the other Ratcliffe cites. That's how hard you have to look to find issues here. It's another great piece of work and I look forward to supporting. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Revised. Many thanks Giants. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Support – Everything looks in order now. Great job as usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review: references are clean like the prior lists, and spotchecks show the information covered and no instances of close paraphrasing. Promoting. --PresN 16:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Girl was a 2015 film which was lauded for the performances of Alicia Vikander and Eddie Redmayne. It received several accolades which are listed here. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

• In the introduction, you talk very little about the awards that the film received. Only one third of the introduction is devoted to the summary of awards. You could mention the Oscar nominations, something about Critics' Choice Movie Awards and more bout SAGs etc etc.
• I'd suggest archiving more links especially for websites for awards shows as they become broken very often. And for refs that are already archived, accessdates probably not necessary anymore.
• Ref number 8 missing date.
• Ref number 38 missing author.
• Ref number 37 missing accessdate. Better to archive it as well.
• No need for comma in note a. as you list only two things, same with f.

Mymis (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Thanks for your comments. I've expanded the lead to have more award content. Have also hopefully dealt with the other comments. Cowlibob (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support. Great work! Mymis (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yashthepunisher

• "British-American biographic film", or "biographical film"?
• You can mention its genre in the opening sentence
• Full stop missing from the alt text.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Thanks for your comments. Have hopefully sorted them. Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great work! Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not sure how 9th or 10th place could be considered a "win". Especially when 3rd and 4th places are tagged as "nominations". Messes with the sorting too... "Golden Globes Awards" or "Golden Globe Awards"? Notes are sentence fragments so don't need full stops. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Sorry for the late reply here. Have fixed above. I think it's "Golden Globe Awards". Cowlibob (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, source review with spotchecks passed. Promoting. --PresN 22:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I worked really hard on this (there are 350 species of parrots so this was really tedious). I based this list off of list of cetaceans, which I've also worked on.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very nice list! The table needs formatting though because it is way too wide, it doesn't fit on my screen and I don't have a small screen! Mattximus (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I have a very big screen because the table fits perfectly for me. I'm not sure how to make the table fit onto different sized screens other than shrinking it (which wouldn't fix anything), any ideas?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but I have a similar problem in an older list. If you use chrome, simply zoom in a bit (hold control and scroll mouse wheel) to see what most users see. I could tell right away you have a very big screen, but unfortunately you are probably the 1%. I'm not good with formatting but there should be an easy fix. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask at the Teahouse   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found the problem. It appears you are forcing the table to have "width:1645px;" and also force the font size to 0.1%? I think the table normally auto-formats for different screen sizes, but the way you have it, it forces it to be a certain width which is far too large for almost every screen. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't do that then all the tables end up being different sizes left-to-right, so it'll end up like this. The font size thing is just for sorting purposes, you can't actually see the letters at 0.1% font size so I just used it so, when sorted, everything would come in the correct order.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it fits on my normal screen, and I tried on a smaller screen. I see what you mean about looking weird, but that's a second problem. The first problem of fitting properly on different screens seems to be fixed. Mattximus (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed the second problem. Check the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's much better on my tiny work laptop. Do note that all of the single-bird tables are missing the purple border, though, because they don't have the inner table. Will return to review this list later if it doesn't get enough eyes; I definitely want to support broader lists like this. --PresN 19:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fixed the border problem   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• The title 'List of parrots' is unclear. It could mean a list of famous parrots, for example. I would prefer 'List of parrot species'.

If it was a list of famous parrots, the title would be "list of famous parrots"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - and a list of parrot species should be titled 'List of parrot species'. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Psittaciformes comprise three main lineages: Strigopoidea, Psittacoidea and Cacatuoidea." This repeats the information in the previous paragraph with duplicate links.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "in the Psittacidae". Is this a typo? You appear to be comparing the Psittacidae family with the Cacatuoidea superfamily.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lorikeets were previously regarded as a third family, Loriidae." Third to what?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "assume the IUCN red list for that species is the citation." I would leave out the word "assume".

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "All extinct species listed are recently extinct species, defined as going extinct after 1500 C.E., according to the IUCN.[22] The dagger symbol "†" indicates the taxon as extinct." Perhaps "All extinct species listed went extinct after 1500 C.E.,[22] and are indicated by the dagger symbol "†"."

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The following classification is based on the most recent proposal as of 2012." "most recent" is recentism and may become outdated. Proposal by who and does it have any official status?

proposal should be plural (fixed). Also, it says "since 2012" so it's up to date as of 2012 (so it doesn't need to be revamped every year)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You use the word "recent" (or "recently") five times in the article. The word is discouraged as it may become out of date - e.g. if the classifications were revised in 2017 - and no one was then updating the article - it would then become incorrect. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The range and picture columns should not be sortable.

I don't think it's possible to have certain columns not sortable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a column unsortable by inserting "class="unsortable" |" before the heading. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are inconsistent whether web refs have access dates. I am not sure of the rule, but I think they all should have them.

I don't see any web refs without an access date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I was referring to the journal articles, but I see the guidance does not require an access date for these. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some confusion over the Forshaw books. Note 10 gives Forshaw and Cooper with date 1978, but in further reading it is 1981, and harv linked although the note does not link to it. Note 29 is the only harv link in the article and the source is listed under further reading. As you use both the books in further reading as sources, I suggest deleting the further reading section and giving full details of the book in note 29.

That's where all the harv linked refs go – in the Further reading section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that your treatment of refs is correct. 1. You can use what reference style you prefer, but you should be consistent. You cannot have one harv ref (you only have one) and the rest not. 2. The 'Further reading' section (if any) should be for works which you are suggesting to the reader, but which have not been used as a source in the article. If you head the citations section "References", the list of sources would normally be headed "Sources", not "Further reading". 3. You have not replied to the point that you give details of Parrots of the World, 2nd edition, twice with different publication dates. 4. There is no reason to have a separate section for the Forshaw books. You give the details of other books such as ref 12 Sibley and 30 Lendon in the references, and do not repeat them in "Further reading". For consistency, you should treat the Forshaw books the same way. Nikki can you please advise whether these comments are correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. You can decide to use harv refs for books only and not journals, but it shouldn't be for just one book and not others. 2. Correct. 3. Interesting - the two ISBNs lead to WorldCat records with different publishers. Was that intended? If so, one should be 2nd and the other 2nd revised. 4. See point 1.

Further sources comments: You are inconsistent in how authors are being formatted, whether book publisher locations are included and if so how these are formatted; FN12 should have an ISBN; and book citations should generally include page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed the ref issues   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a first rate article and an enormous amount of work has clearly gone into it. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I still think that "List of parrot species" would give the reader a clearer idea of the subject of the article, but it is not a deal-breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

• "regions in the Southern Hemisphere, as well." - no comma

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Strigopoidea were considered part of the Psittacoidea, but recent studies place this group of New Zealand species at the base of the parrot tree next to the remaining members of the Psittacoidea, as well as all members of the Cacatuoidea." - "were considered" is missing a time, and the second half is awkward; perhaps "The Strigopoidea were once considered part of the Psittacoidea, but recent studies place this group of New Zealand species as their own superfamily next to the Cacatuoidea and remaining members of the Psittacoidea.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Colourful feathers with high levels of psittacofulvin resist the feather-degrading bacterium Bacillus licheniformis better than white ones" - this sentence just pops up in the middle of things without any strong connection to the sentences before or after.

not sure why that was there. Removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, paragraph 3 duplicates the first sentence of paragraph 2- that needs to be fixed.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "if a range map is not available, there will be a description of the bird's range with a citation provided" -> " if a range map is not available, a description of the bird's range is provided" (better tone, and of course there's a citation)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "If a citation is not provided for this, the IUCN red list for that species is the citation." -> "Ranges are based on the IUCN red list for that species unless otherwise noted."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tribe Androglossini: seven genera." and "Subfamily Coracopsinae: one genus with several species." - 2 lines out of the Psittacoidea section end in a period, and should not

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohhh, I really wish all of the range maps were in the same style. Not going to oppose over it, but, ugh.
• Tables are all missing colscopes - so, "!Common name!!Scientific name!!IUCN Red List Status!!Range!!Picture" should be:

!scope="col"|Common name
!scope="col"|Scientific name
!scope="col"|IUCN Red List Status
!scope="col"|Range
!scope="col"|Picture

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the sorting option from the range and picture columns (!scope="col" class="unsortable"|Range)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And, you need rowscopes on the first cell of each row in the tables: "|Timneh parrot" -> "!scope="row"|Timneh parrot". This may adjust the formatting to bold the first column; this can be reverted by doing "!scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"|Timneh parrot" instead

*400 parrots later* done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, since it's a bit odd- the reason there's no citation for all of the tables is because the whole thing is cited to that string of cites in "Classification", [6][7][18][24][25][26][27], yes? Except for the ranges, which are to the bit in the IUCN column.

yes (and also the IUCN links)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• --PresN 02:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, sorry about all the work on rowscopes. Still really, really wish there was a consistent image style for ranges, but asking you to make several hundred range maps for this list is a bit much, so... Support. --PresN 03:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to you and some other Wikipedians can create 400 range maps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry you've been waiting so long for further review comments...

• Why is "Psittaciformes" in bold in the lead, and not "parrots"?!

to avoid bolding a wikilink (someone told me this was against WP:MOS)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• IPA is usually given in parentheses with an IPA link to explain it to non-experts.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " of Psittaciformes until" no point in linking this as it redirects back to the article on Parrot which you've already linked.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

• " Nestoridae and Strigopidae." similar comment applies.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer to see the references inline to each item in the Classification section rather than that list of refs [9][10][17][4][23][24][25]...

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "are the 402 species of birds that make" vs "consists of 387 extant species belonging to 87 genera" - you should make it clear in the lead that not all 402 species are extant.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "18 genera" it's legitimate here to say "Eighteen" since all other numbers are in words in this section, and MOS:NUM would support it in any case.

words for single-digit numbers, numbers for multiple-digit numbers

Per MOS, Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Purely aesthetically, I don't like the way the table formats (i.e. column widths) change from section to section.

I don't think I can fix that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also prefer to see each parrot referenced inline.

It's the IUCN link. If it was a formal inline citation I don't think you could find much of anything in that mess of a ref section.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's an awful one, for WP:ACCESS we expect each image to have alt text. Ouch.

*screams internally*   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: We actually haven't been enforcing alt text as a requirement, and I'd argue that it's not helpful in this case- the alt text will always be "A bird. Name: this row's bird" or "a map, with a chunk of x continent filled in". --PresN 12:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, but I would argue that correctly craft alt text wouldn't simply say "a bird". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of what alt text would look like for African grey parrot (P. erithacus)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Change [[File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg|180px]] to [[File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg|180px|alt=African grey parrot]] Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to PresN, that kind of alt text wouldn't be helpful at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that ignoring accessibility requirements completely is a good idea when we're trying to assess the finest work that Wikipedia produces. Featured Lists really ought to be setting the best example for other editors who will look to them for best practice. I've just added alt text to the lead image as an example of what extra information alt text might bring to someone who relies on assistive technology. It is true that in many cases the description of the image will be mundane, but you need to ask yourself what the purpose of including each image is? If it's purely decorative, then I'd say the images should not be there. If it's to show viewers what that species of parrot looks like, then I suggest that you ought to be also providing as much of that information to blind visitors as you can. For example, a screen reader coming to the image File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg is likely to hear something like "Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee link File colon Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee". That's really not very helpful. I suggest that setting the alt text to something like "A grey parrot with black beak, white face and a short red tail" would prove far more useful to someone who can't see the image (for whatever reason). I know it's a lot of work, but it really is worthwhile. You might also want to consider whether you should be showing alt text for File:Congo Grey Parrot range.jpg as "Southern regions of Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon, and throughout Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo". --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I possibly get some help with that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring it altogether is a bad idea. The guideline suggests that it's enough if we just mention the name of the species in these kinda lists. I know it can be tedious, but is it that difficult? —Vensatry _(talk) 18:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blind person: *uses alt text*, alt text: "african grey parrot", blind person: "wow, thank you for that helpful description"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that not every person who uses a screen reader is completely blind, and not every blind person has been so since birth? Plenty of visitors using assistive technology are perfectly aware of colours. I must say that your thoughtless attitude to those less fortunate than yourself does nothing to persuade me to help you further. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all intents and purposes, lets say that this reader is legally blind or not blind from birth. If they read the first item on the list, it'll read "African grey parrot", so they don't need alt text to know that the picture in that specific row is of an African grey parrot.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a sighted reader will see that the parrot is in fact grey; that it has a black bill, a white mask and a short red tail. Why do you think the visually impaired reader shouldn't be given that information as well? If you don't think that information is relevant, then why is the picture there anyway? --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the alt text just reading "african grey parrot" as redundant because the blind reader will already know it is a picture of an african grey parrot. On the other hand, if the alt text reads "A grey parrot with a black beak, white face and a short red tail" then I can support the use of alt text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's good. I do think the pictures add information (and interest) to the list, so it's only fair to try to share a little of that with visually impaired visitors. Additionally, the images do occasionally provide much more than you would expect from the name: that Red-fronted parrot doesn't seem to have a red feather anywhere on its front! --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sections 4 and 5 need an intro section to clarify why they are not in 3. This probably should be present in the intro too. Nergaal (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like why the True parrots section is broken up into three families?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"true" implies the rest are fake. Yet list show that they are parrots. the last 2 categories should explain why are they parrots but not true parrots. Nergaal (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"True parrots" is just a common name, like "toothed whale" (not all "toothed whales" are actually "whales", most are dolphins). It's just a colloquial term for the family, nothing more. If you want a ref for that, most everything says something along the lines of "...true parrots (Psittacoidea)..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility check from RexxS

• The use colour meets our Manual of Style's requirements both in contrast between foreground and background and in ensuring that information is not conveyed by colour alone. The possible exception is the table of IUCN Red List categories, where the text is not not always clearly defined against the background; however, those are best viewed as text-icons where the colour conveys the information to sighted visitors, while the text conveys the information to screen readers. That's not an accessibilty problem.
• All text complies with MOS:FONTSIZE.
• The tables meet the requirements of MOS:TABLE.
• The sections all comply with MOS:HEADING and WP:GOODHEAD.
• Dunkleosteus77 has put a mammoth effort into ensuring that each image has appropriate alt text. The job is nearly finished, so I thought it worth commending him on the results. @The Rambling Man: does that meet your expectations now?

This list is a comprehensive collection on a topic of both general and specialist interest. I'd be happy to recommend it to any aspiring list-builder as a fine example, and support its promotion to Featured List. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support firstly, a massive thank you and congratulations to Dunkleosteus77 for such an unbelievably great effort, and such a sincerely positive attitude in this nomination. A thanks also to RexxS for his ongoing guidance in relation to accessibility issues. I know that when I was previously a director etc, I placed a lot of emphasis on ensuring these more technical pages were still usable to all, and RexxS has been indispensable in helping me make such assessments. Good work all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Mascarene grey parakeet is not considered a member of Lophopsittacus anymore (since 2007), but as a species of Psittacula. I can see the IUCN[14] still places it in the former, but they are often slow to catch up. The IOC (which Wikipedia follows) does use the new combination:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The list looks comprehensive and well researched – Dunkleosteus77's work is breathtaking. That said, I agree with Dudley Miles on renaming the title to 'List of parrot species'. Also, please add page no(s). for ref#19. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added page numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Director note – It looks as if this FLC has a large amount of support, but we still need a source review for formatting and reliability, and a test of whether the links are working. Spot-checks of a few sources would be nice as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also everyone, keep in mind that there are about 150 more images in need of alt text. I've done about 250 by myself so I'm a bit tired of it, to say the least, and some help on this would be much appreciated. I've gotten through the cockatoos and the New Zealand parrots, so the 150 awaiting alt text are, as of right now, Bourke's parrot and onward in the True parrots section. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 100 more images in need of alt text. I've done about 300 by myself so I'm a bit tired of it, to say the least, and some help on this would be much appreciated. I've gotten through the cockatoos and the New Zealand parrots, so the 100 awaiting alt text are, as of right now, Kuhl's lorikeet and onward in the True parrots section. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can offer both a source and image review (if it hasn't been done) since this FL has been here for a long time. It would be shame for it to be archived despite the large support. I may start tomorrow. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review—looks like things are in order, formatting-wise, with just a few comments:
  • Usually it looks better to shift the edition into |edition= for a book citation, like in note 2.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • In note 6, it would read better if you used |edition=1st just to get the ordinal number instead of the cardinal number.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the reliability, nothing would fail that prong of the source review test. I'll try to spotcheck a few of the sources later on today. Imzadi 1979 → 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotcheck—picking some sources at random:
  • FN2: verified
  • FN7: not verified; I could not find any reference to that content in the article, unless I'm missing something.

replaced   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • FN12: verified
  • FN18: verified
  • FN22: not verified; I'm not seeing anything about the dagger character in that citation. As a side note, I'm not sure that such a statement really needs a citation since it's serving to act as a legend for how we're indicating extinction status, even if it's a standard convention.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • FN26: partially verified; the source only says "Australia", but not "Southwest Australia".

the source is the IUCN link, I'm not sure why I put that other ref there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • FN31: verified
• As noted, the two citations don't appear to back the prose, but the one is probably a bit superfluous anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Snowmanradio

• Spix's macaw is classified as Critically Endangered (possibly extinct in the wild). It is difficult to prove extinct in the wild, but none are known in the wild. Snowman (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I make a note of it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is significant and should be mentioned. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it right to split off the Aztec parakeet as a separate species? IOC have not split it. It does not have a separate page on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the list follows the IUCN Redlist which splits off Aztec parrot as a separate species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this controversial?

some authors split them, some don't   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the status of the Jamaican parakeet as a separate species established? Snowman (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

according to the IUCN Redlist, yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this controversial?

some authors split them, some don't   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is odd that some of the species names on the list appear as red links, which possible indicates that there appear to be taxonomy or nomenclature inconsistencies with this list and the rest of the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but the list follows the IUCN Redlist   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy is difficult. The Wiki does not automatically follow the IUCN for taxonomy. Why follow the IUCN Red list? Snowman (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what should I have followed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, did the last alt text bits myself. That... was a lot of parrots. This appears to have cleared up the last issue- there are a few redlinks, but not very many, and they all appear to legitimately be missing articles for that species/subspecies. On an unrelated note, it appears that this list completely supercedes List of parrot species classified by families, which is just the true parrots but without any additional information (and with quite a bit less, and an awful name), unlike List of Strigopoidea, so that should probably get redirected. This nomination has been open way, way too long, and I'm very please to finally close it as promoted. Congratulations! --PresN 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.