Talk:Einsatzgruppen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Criterion met
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Criterion met
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Criterion met
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Criterion met
	2c. it contains no original research.	Criterion met
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fairly comprehensive, especially for GA level Given the fresh information on the additional Einsatzgruppen, a part of information seems to be missing at the moment After addition of new material, and another look at WP:GACR #3, I think this criterion is now met.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine balance between breadth and detail struck
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias observed
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	the article appears stable judging from the article history
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images seem to be licensed properly. Since Walter Stahlecker died in 1942, i.e. 71 years ago the EU legislation allows its public domain use
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Criterion met
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

MOS issues:

• Section heading should not begin with articles per MOS:HEAD.Y
• There is at least one instance of use of both American and British spellings "organized" and "organised". The article appears to be predominantly in BE, so assuming I judged it correctly this should be changed to BE variant (organised) per MOS:ENGVAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Y
• Not exactly a part of MOS, but I think the {{lang-de}} does not require quotation marks to envelop the word in German since it is already italicised. Also, the following instances of German words could be made using {{lang}} without specifying "German" over and over again. I read that backwards. Actually the {{lang-de}} template is misused in the lead because it is intended to denote that the specific word belongs to German language and "task forces" clearly is not in German. I suggest you rephrase this, possibly as (German for: "task forces",[1] "deployment groups";[2] singular Einsatzgruppe; official full name Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD)--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Y
• Abbreviations/acronyms are introduced inconsistently, for instance: (Security Police; SiPo) and (RSHA – Reich Main Security Office). I suggest selecting one form consistently.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Y
• There should be a non-breaking space between measurements and corresponding units, including time values followed by "am" or "pm" (added one instance myself) per MOS:NBSP. Please check for other places where a nbsp might be needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Y

The sourcing seems fine, but I'll tick that area off once I complete thorough reading of the article. The lead seems a bit short, but I'll check what (if anything) need be added there per WP:LEAD first, so I expect to post further comments here shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tomobe03. Thank you for tacling this GA review. I have gone through your first batch of comments and dealt with the issues you raised. -- Dianna (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Prose review:

• In From September 1939 forward the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office; RSHA) had overall command of the Einsatzgruppen., time clause should be moved to the back of the sentence, or separated by a comma. Besides that, from-forward seems awkward to me, please consider omitting "forward".Y
• In ... Heydrich re-formed the Einsatzgruppen to travel in the wake of the German armies., do you mean to say that an Einsetzgruppe followed one field army or should that simply be a generic term such as "troops" or "units"?
  • Each Einsatzgruppe was assigned to and followed a specific army.
• Add rank of Werner Best at the first instance he's mentioned (Obergruppenführer) and wikilink it? Similar should be done with other persons mentioned in the article if they had a rank or title.Y Obergruppenführer is already wikilinked (Heydrich). I went through the article and found quite a few other men did not have their ranks and fixed this problem.
• I assume that quite a good portion of readers might have an idea who Hitler was, but the first instance of the name should probably include his first name and position held, just to be on the safe side. WP:SURNAME seems to imply that this is indeed so, although it does not say so specifically.Y
• If Sicherheitspolizei is abbrviated to SiPo (capital P), is there a reason to use lowercase p in Ordnungspolizei abbreviation? Ditto for Kriminalpolizei.
  • The abbreviations used are the correct ones. I don't know why they are not consistent.
• The last paragraph of the "Formation and Action T4" might be better off in the "Invasion of Poland" section since the paragraph on the Action T4 seems to have little to do with formation of the Einsatzgruppen. Moreover, the killings of the mentally ill are mentioned in some detail in the "Invasion of Poland" section as well. Speaking of which, the paragraph now in the "Formation and Action T4" subsection specifies gas chambers were used for the killings by the end of 1941, while the subsequent section mentions use of the gas vans since spring of 1941. Do the gas chambers refer to the gas vans or not? If yes, spring of 1941 and "by the end of 1941" while technically correct seem odd. If not, that's only one more reason to combine the last paragraph of the "Formation and Action T4" and the "Invasion of Poland" section material in the latter section (with appropriately truncated name of the first one).
  • Aktion T4 was in Germany, not in Poland. Additional mentally ill people were killed in Poland by the Einstazgruppen, but this was not part of Aktion T4. Some of these killings in Poland preceded Aktion T4. I have amended the prose to try to clarify the sequence of events, but I don't think Aktion T4 can be moved to the section about Poland, because it took place in Germany. I notice that Longerich page 139 says that gas chambers were tried out for Aktion T4 in January 1940 and others were created that spring, so I have corrected that error. In Poland, gas vans were first used in early 1940 in Warthegau, and began being widely used in October 1941 (Longerich [2010] page 240-241). I have made amendments that hopefully clarify the sequence of events and which methods of killing were used.
• Hitler approved the re-establishment of the Einsatzgruppen in the lead-up to Operation Barbarossa... implies that the Einsatzgruppen were disbanded sometime in between the invasion of Poland and Operation Barbarossa. Prose preceding the quoted bit does not say that ever happened. Moreover, gas vans in spring of 1941 and gas chambers "by the end of 1941" are discussed - since the invasion of the Soviet Union started in June 1941, I'm wondering if there was any practical time to disestablish and then establish the Einsatzgruppen. Was it perhaps the case that some of the Einsatzgruppen were disbanded and reestablished instead (current wording implies all of them were), or were additional Einsatzgruppen formed instead of reestablished (as "reestablished" implies restoration of a previously disbanded units)? Since the order to reestablish the Einsatzgruppen is dated to June 1940, this creates a significant overlap with the Einsatzgruppen activities in Poland.
  • I think this sentence should be omitted. The organisational structure of the Ensatzgruppen changed with the start of Barbarossa to the four main units, identified by letters A through D. Weale states on page 309 that Einsatzgruppen were training in Poland in May 1941 in preparation for the invasion of the Soviet Union, which began on 22 June 1941. Einsatzgruppen activity in Poland ceased when the invasion started. Einsatzgruppen activity in Poland ceased when the invasion started, but resumed with the activities of the Einsatzgruppe for Special Purposes starting in July 1941. Sorry, I do not have access to the quoted source right now to check out why the sentence was worded this way.
• Why are there quotation marks surrounding the "special force" in the Einsatzgruppe B row of the Organisation as of 1941 table?Y removed
• The question mark in the "Einsatzgruppe {?}" in the same table appears as if it is a placeholder for a letter or a number expected to be added later on. Is that an omission - should there be a letter/number or not?
  • See below
• I would prefer omitting the question mark in the EG name, replacing "Einsatzgruppe {?}" with "(proposed) Einsatzgruppe" if no name is known, but I suppose there is no policy requiring you to do so. This particularly applies to the Einsatzgruppe Egypt, since it appears to have a name. The title column of the Einsatzgruppe {?} (United Kingdom) entry should reflect that those were six (proposed) EGs.
  • This is a better solution than the question marks, so I have made the change.
• Was the Einsatzgruppe for the UK actually formed or only planned - the article does not seem to say so, and what does it mean that the Ersatzgruppe (United Kingdom) unit was never organised? Was it formally established but never implemented, or was it proposed but never formally established?
  • Shirer says the groups were "organized" by Heydrich, but he does not specify what that entailed. Did he choose the staff? Did he decide on numbers? We don't know. Regardless, they never saw active service, so I have amended the material in the table. Please let me know if you think this is adequate.
• In All four Einsatzgruppen took part in mass shootings from the early days of the war. only four Einsatzgruppen are implied to exist, while the table in the previous section specifies five (plus two presumably planned). Does that mean that the Einsatzgruppen active in Poland until at least spring of 1941 (judging from the prose of the article) were disbanded or amalgamated into these new ones? (Ditto for Gas vans, which had been used previously to kill mental patients, began to see service by all four main Einsatzgruppen from 1942.)
  • The four main Einsatzgruppen were not formed until the invasion of the Soviet Union. In Poland there was a different organisational structure. Some of the men served both in Poland and in the Soviet Union, but there were a lot more men involved after Barbarossa. The sources don't have much information on the fifth Einstazgruppe; I was unable to find out the date of the unit's formation, for example.
• Einsatzgruppe designation (A-D) is italicized in some instances and not in the others. This should be made consistent.Y
• If only the Einsatzgruppe A entered Kaunas, Einsatzgruppen in Upon entering Kaunas, Lithuania, on 25 June 1941, the Einsatzgruppen released the criminals from the local jail... should be singular or "Einsatzgruppe A".Y
• In On the second day of the Aktion, 8 December 1941, the remaining 10,000 Jews of Riga were killed in the same way., does "Aktion" represent an official codename or something like that? Since the term is not previously introduced it appears unclear what this is. Assuming this is a codename, I'd recommend using a short sentence to introduce the term first.
  • It's the German word for "operation". I will change it to the English word.
• I don't think there's any need for scare quotes in the "Second sweep" expression - the expression means what it says.Y
• Is there any reason to use both Byelorussia and Belarus in the article? A contemporary name should be used consistently.Y
• The article refers to the war as the Second World War once and once as the World War II (besides in the lead). Both forms are, of course, fine, but only one should be selected for consistency.Y
• There are duplicate links to some terms found in the article. Per WP:OVERLINK, only the 1st instance of a term (except for the lead, tables, etc) should be wikilinked. Such terms here are: Otto Rasch, Latvia, Lithuania, Franz Walter Stahlecker (multiple instances), Army Group South, Army Group North.Y I left duplicate links in the table, which is customary I think.
• I think it would be advisable to add some information regarding the Wehrmacht involvement and the trials into the lead (just a couple of sentences on each) per WP:LEAD Y

A lot of work went into this article and a little bit more is needed to fix these issues. Good job! If you don't mind, I'd like to have another user to have a look at the prose, just in case I missed anything of substance. I'll place the GAR on hold for now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I think I have covered all the points above. Please let me know if any of this work was inadequate and I will undertake further improvements. I of course have no objection to you asking for another editor to review the prose. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Prose review One non-prose thing before I get started. I didn't notice a mention of Einsatzgruppen E (Croatia), F (Army Group South), G (Romania and Hungary), H (Slovakia, from memory), or K&L (5 and 6 Panzer Army respectively). I believe there was also an Einsatzgruppe Griechenland in occupied Greece, and an Einsatzkommando Luxemburg. For comprehensive coverage, I would expect at least the other Einsatzgruppen to be mentioned. A few initial points, I'll finish this up tonight my time.

• "that Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler would be given "special tasks"" Y
• link SS and Police Leader where " Higher SS Police Chiefs" is first mentioned Y
• SS-Brigadeführer Walter Schellenberg of the SS (redundant) Y
• "commandos" is a misnomer, I suggest using the term einsatzkommando's, kommando's or death squads Y
• "He sent out a circular to the generals" Y

All done now. Very little to do. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for lending a hand. The info about the additional Einsatzgruppen is quite interesting.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker 67. These other Einsatzgruppen were not mentioned in any of the sources that I have available, and I was unaware of their existence. If you have some sources and would like to add some info, that would be great, as I am unable to do so. I have looked after the above noted prose corrections. Thanks for helping with the review. -- Dianna (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I found sources and added some information about these additional units. Unfortunately I was unable so far to locate the names of most of the commanding officers, so if you have more info please feel free to add it. -- Dianna (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just discovered that the information in the table largely duplicates information already available at Einsatzkommando. So I don't see any point in expanding this table any further. How do you think this should be handled? -- Dianna (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO this article should provide a comprehensive overview of all the Gruppen, and mention the kommandos that formed each. I think it would be better to have this article as the overview and summary-style article, then create new articles for each Einsatzgruppe. The existing Einsatzkommando article could be used as the basis for the new articles. I was intending to create Einsatzgruppe Serbia and Einsatzgruppe E articles (because I mostly work on Balkans articles). I will dig up the refs, but originally there was Einsatzgruppe Jugoslawien based in Belgrade, but the Ustasha complained that an entity operating in their "sovereign" country was based in the former Yugoslav capital, so Einsatzgruppe Kroatien was created which subsequently became Einsatzgruppe E, and the Jugoslawien one in Belgrade became Einsatzgrupe Serbien. There were subordinate einsatzkommandos in various places like Novi Sad, Nis and Skopje (Serbien), and Vinkovci, Banja Luka and Sarajevo (Kroatien/E) among others. What do you think about the idea of breaking up the Einsatzkommando article and creating an article for each Gruppe? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there's enough source material for an article on each gruppe. Particularly since I didn't even know that some of them existed until 12 hours ago. -- Dianna (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is in German. But there are a lot of books in English on the Holocaust that mention the non-Eastern Front einsatzgruppen, they just aren't available in preview online. I am referring to my notes at the moment, so I'll have to get into the library in the next few days and rat through what they have to get more detail. For now I wouldn't get too concerned about the duplication, the einsatzkommando article is essentially about the same subject at this one, and the two should either be merged or forked on an einsatzgruppe basis as I have suggested.

Here is some online info about "H" [1]. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This p.444 seems to identify five Eisatzkommandos of the Einsatzgruppe E - in Vinkovci, Zagreb, Banja Luka, Knin and Sarajevo. And as far as the EGr E is concerned, French L. MacLean, The field men: the SS officers who led the Einsatzkommandos identifies the EGr commanders as Ludwig Teichmann, Günther Herrmann and Wilhelm Fuchs - in that order (p.23). I think there might be additional info on other Einsatzgruppen in the book, but I'm not positive on that. As far as the Einsatzkommando article is concerned, it is quite poorly referenced, so I think it is of little use.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Online available info on EGr K and EGr L is here p.168--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

According to this and the above the EGr L commander was Ludwig Hahn and the EGr K commander was Emanuel Schäfer. Tomobe03 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Right now, it seems that a part of information is missing - except on the EGrs in Polish campaign and the Barbarossa. If the Polish campaign related information or the Barbarossa part of information were presented in separate articles such as "Einsatzgruppen in Poland" or "Einsatzgruppen in Soviet Union" (or similarly named) I'd have no problem passing the GAN right away. As it is right now, a similar level of detail should be presented for other EGrs (or information that those were inactive such as the UK one) to have a comprehensive information. Tomobe03 (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I (as a GA reviewer) should not really get into article content issues, but if I may offer a suggestion re content: The article as it is now could be transformed (split) into a list (List of Einsatzgruppen) and two articles (Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Eisatzgruppen in Soviet Union - or something along those lines). The material coverage, referencing etc. that could be reasonably split into the two articles would make two good article candidates with virtually nothing to do prior to a GAN. The hypothetical list would of course need some work. How does that sound to you?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a three-way split is a good idea. We need a main article on Einsatzgruppen, and this is it. I think we could split into two articles: "List of Einsatzgruppen" and this one. -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, an additional section of the prose briefly describing the additional Einsatzgruppen will do. Nothing too elaborate, I imagine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to park the chart in User:Diannaa/sandbox for the moment, as I think since it duplicates material already present in Einsatzkommando, maybe it should be moved there. What do you think? Should the content in the chart be merged into Einsatzkommando, or should we create List of Einsatzgruppen? -- Dianna (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the table lists Einsatzgruppen it should be in the article on the Einsatzgruppen or in the List of Einsatzgruppen. Either solution is fine, but since the table would contain considerable blank spaces in some rows, I think it would be very opportune to move it to a separate list (linked using {{further}} from the main article). The prose section (mentioned above) would still be needed to provide comprehensive coverage in either case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be at a new article: List of Einsatzgruppen. I have removed the chart from this article and have added two paragraphs outlining what we have learned so far about the additional units and it is ready for you to check over. Thanks so much. -- Dianna (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

According to this the EGr Iltis fought Yugoslav partisans at the border of Slovenia and Austria. This source specifies Carinthia - but not exactly which part. That might place them in Carinthia (Slovenia) or Carinthia (state) - especially so since the area was considered a single area in 1941-1945. Perhaps you could mention the border in conjunction with either Carinthia region just to make sure.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Y

In addition, EGr Serbien appears to have formed in May 1941 (according to this p.23) source. I suspect the EGr Serbien and EGr Kroatien were formed instead of EGr Jugoslawien, which had an Einsatzkommando in Zagreb (Agram) in April 1941 ([2]) - quite likely to cover the Independent State of Croatia and occupied Serbia.Y

Also, there appears to have been Einsatzgruppe Wiking ([3]) active in Denmark, Norway and Finland. This source (p.63) provides some info on EGr Norwegen and EGr Wiking.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Strike this about the EGr Wiking - it appears to have been one of Einsatzgruppen of the Organisation Todt per this source (p.18).--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In that vein, there should be a hatnote {{About}} disambiguating with the appropriate section of the Organisation Todt. (ditto in the List of Einsatzgruppen)--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Y

These tasks have been completed. -- Dianna (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)