Talk:Nazi war crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Halibutt (talk · contribs) 07:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly. //Halibu tt 07:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this article seems like a much shorter and less-well-developed version of World War II crimes in occupied Poland. That article reads much better, has plenty of in-line citations and generally seems like what this article could become when properly worked on. I would consider merging what new info is there in this article into that one, and promoting it to GA then. //Halibu tt 08:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to specific issues:

Lead and general remarks

Generally the lead looks better without citations. Generally, you don't need citations in the lead section so long as you're citing the same information in the body, you can omit cites up top. It's but a suggestion though, not a requirement.

Your're correct about the better looks, but this is a controversial article with a history of edit wars starting from the opening paragraph. All controversial subjects invite tagging whenever any factual information is mentioned in the lead without reference. Usually, inline citations prevent this kind of knee-jerk reaction. However, to declutter the lead editing, I reformatted all anchors using {{sfn}} template. I hope it helps. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations: It's generally tidier to separate citations from references. WP:CITE doesn't force you to use a single citation scheme though. However, I believe the article would benefit from using a consistent references scheme. How about using {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} templates and filling all the missing info? I mean author names, publication dates, publishers and so on.
same goes for consistency when using (or not) the language tags: either use {{pl icon}} and {{en icon}} for all references or omit them. Personally I like to include them, but it's a matter of taste, just be consistent with it.
WP:CITE suggest we use "p." rather than "pg." as the abbreviation for "page". "cite" templates use that abbreviation by default.
Since a large part of references are in Polish, it is a good practice to include a translation of titles in the ref. When using {{cite book}} template just fill in the trans_title= parameter.
I believe the article could benefit from a section describing what the Polish nation actually is. The problems with WWII and post-WWII sources is that there are at least several conflicting views. Currently most works on the Holocaust for instance accept the Nazi German division of Polish citizens on people declared Jews by the Nazis (regardless of whether they actually were Jews or not), and gentile Poles (regardless of whether they were ethnic Poles, or Polish Germans for instance). IMHO this merits an explanation in the article.
Splitting notes from in-line citations would also do this article good, per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Separating citations from explanatory footnotes
Images and their copyright status:
- File:Bekanntmachung Warschau 1943.jpg is wrongly tagged as {{PD-Art}}.

1939 September Campaign

"Soon after the German invasion of Poland..." - sentence is too long and slightly too complicated, I'd consider splitting it
"In "Intelligenzaktion Pommern"..." - first part of the sentence refers to a local part of Intelligenzaktion, the latter part to whole country, which doesn't seem clear from the context.
"In the mid-1940s, the AB-Aktion saw several..." - AB-Aktion started in 1940. I wouldn't call this "mid-1940s".

Terror and pacification

" Poland was the only country in occupied Europe where the ..." - this sentence needs a citation
"Seventy-five villages were razed in these operations." - same here
" He envisioned the future 'dry guillotine'..." - same here

Concentration camps

Practically every sentence in this section needs a citation.
Again, it is unclear who the "non-Jewish Poles" are. My grandpa was declared a Polish political prisoner by the Germans. His schoolmate was declared a Jew by the Germans (one of his grandparents was a Catholic convert from Judaism). Both ended up in the concentration camps.
"An estimated 30,000 non-Jewish Poles died at Mauthausen-Gusen..." citation badly needed. Also, in the case of Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp (my FA from way back) I have never seen such numbers. One early estimate for the total death toll is 122000, including slightly over 30,000 "Polish citizens", without any mention of whether their religion or ancestry. I guess the numbers for other camps need checking as well.
"Medical experiments" sub-section is too narrow in scope. It lists numerous unconnected facts, without much general outlook. I added a link to Nazi human experimentation, but perhaps the section could be expanded?

Indiscriminate executions

Again, the section needs more citations before it can be reviewed.

Forced labor in Germany

More citations needed. I could add {{fact}} tags to the article to help with identifying the places where citations should be, but I guess you get the idea.
"This did not mean old style of Germanization..." - the sentence suggests that the Poles living in the aforementioned areas were settled with Germans. I get what the author means, but an uninformed reader might not, this needs clarification.
" Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussiathe Gauleiter Albert Forster..." - unclear. I would also suggest mentioning that the subscription to the Volksliste was a complicated matter, and that some did it voluntarily, while others had not much of a choice.
"Signs posted in front of those establishments..." - actually such signs were not only in front of establishments confiscated from their Polish owners. "Racial" segregation and economic exploitation, while related, were not directly linked as far as I know. This needs ironing out.
"The Nazi regime was less stringent in their treatment ..." - ref needed. Also, I believe a mention of Silesia and Goralenvolk could fit in here nicely.

Crimes against children

Parts of this section are directly related to "Germanization" above. How about merging them? Also, the sub-section on "Persecution of Catholic clergy" isn't really related to children, is it.
The article on Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany has some numbers, why not use them here?
"A camp for children and teenagers..." - ref needed
"In Pomerania, all but 20 of the 650 priests..." - ref needed.
The data for Catholic clergy from Breslau doesn't really fit in the article on persecution of Poles, does it. Also, a reference for the data cited would be in place.

The destruction of Polish Jewry (1942-43)

Again, the article lacks a decent description of its' scope: who is a Pole, who is a Polish Jew, how are the two groups related. This seems obvious to informed readers, but the article should be legible to uninformed readers as well.
"The camps were designed and operated by Nazi Germans..." not sure this sentence fits in this article. The "Polish death camps" controversy doesn't really belong in this article in any form, except perhaps as a See also.

1944 destruction of Warsaw

more references needed

Generally the laundry list is pretty long, and includes really serious stuff. I mean GA criteria:

1b (problem with sections and sub-sections)
2a and 2b (consistent citation style, lack of proper citations where needed)
3b (the article doesn't seem focused on the topic at times)
6a (one instance of badly-tagged image)

I would really suggest merging the article with World War II crimes in occupied Poland, as there would be much less work with that article. Other than that, I also asked User:Piotrus for his thoughts on this issue. I'm putting the article on hold for now, let's see where it gets us. Note that, even after this list is done, it will require another read-through to see what's left to be done, as right now it's still "under construction" in my mind. Overall the article shows promise, but this needs substantial refinement to progress up the chain IMHO. //Halibu tt 09:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Halibutt for picking up this nomination from the lineup. I see GAN as an opportunity to actually develop this article further with feedback, rather than abandon it as a prospective Good Article. Without feedback, I would have probably stopped editing in here. The reasons for extra effort are simple in my view. The World War II crimes committed by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland deserve a full size article separate from the 'other' perpetrators of crimes against humanity in the same period described in the original article. I nominated this article before the overhaul of the other one (between 20 September and 1 October 2013) mainly to get inspired by you. I will be addressing your comments gradually (top to bottom) in the next few days with possible expansion of raw data from the mother article beginning with September 1939 crimes. Poeticbent talk 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Medical experiments" sub-section is too narrow in scope. It lists numerous unconnected facts, without much general outlook. I added a link to Nazi human experimentation, but perhaps the section could be expanded?

I can expand it.

"This did not mean old style of Germanization..." - the sentence suggests that the Poles living in the aforementioned areas were settled with Germans. I get what the author means, but an uninformed reader might not, this needs clarification.

This actually incorrect. Nazis adopted several ideas that were already proposed under German Empire. I will add this(with sources of course)

"A camp for children and teenagers..." - ref needed

Will do

""The data for Catholic clergy from Breslau doesn't really fit in the article on persecution of Poles"

Will add data on persecution of Polish population within Germany itself, including Wroclaw. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- G'day Halibutt, I am just trawling through old MILHIST GANs and this one is looking very stale, pass or not? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait, I'm sure Halibutt would also be kind enough to wait a bit longer. I'm in the process of trying to address the FA nomination reviews for Treblinka. A lot of work there, but most comments have already been dealt with. I will continue here soon enough. Thanks for the patience, Poeticbent talk 02:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been another three weeks, and only a single edit in the meantime. This has now been open for two months and three weeks, and I suggest that it needs action now, or be allowed to close. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say it that I nominated three different articles at about the same time knowing about the usual long delays (up to three months I was told). Meanwhile the work on Treblinka FAC continues with more and more requests for clarifications. The Treblinka FAC nomination will be re-started again at the end of this month. It is up to User:Halibutt to decide what to do next because I intend to return to this GAN eventually or renominate the article if necessary. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Treblinka FAC closed as unsuccessful on December 16 after being open for a month and a half, and it's clear you intend to restart it immediately after the two week wait is over. Since that is occupying all your time, and seems likely to do so for the next month if not more, it sounds like a closure of this now and renomination once you can devote the necessary time to it is the fairest option. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree, very stale nomination. I suggest close and renom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

The reviewer, Halibutt, has not edited on Wikipedia for a full month, and the nominator, Poeticbent, has been occupied for over two months on another FAC, which will continue to take precedence for the next several weeks. Given the loss of the former and lack of attention by the latter, it clearly makes sense to close this nomination now; as Peacemaker67 notes, it is quite stale. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]