Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treblinka extermination camp/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was withdrawn by AmericanLemming (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2014 (diff).

Treblinka extermination camp

[edit]

Treblinka extermination camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): AmericanLemming (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere between 800,000 and 1,200,000 people died at Treblinka, second only to Auschwitz. More Polish Jews died in its gas chambers than at any other single location. And besides for the death toll, we have the futile but heroic prisoner uprising, its neglect for a time in the postwar years, the long wait to bring those responsible to justice...it makes for interesting, if not especially happy, reading. Poeticbent and I have addressed all issues from the first FAC, and I put the article through a rigorous peer review of my own after the FAC failed. With all that said, we present to you the finest English-language encyclopedia article on Treblinka in the world. We will do our best to address your concerns promptly; it won't be hard, since the article's about as good as it's ever going to get. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent history of the article

The article has been expanded and completely rewritten in the past eight months:

1. Poeticbent improved and expanded the article beginning in August and continuing through most of September.
2. In late October, Khazar2, one of Wikipedia's best GA reviewers (now retired, sadly), reviewed the article and recommended a thorough copyedit, which I performed.
3. Based on the comprehensive GA review, Poeticbent decided to nominate at FAC in early November. I performed a second copyedit during this time.
4. Squemish Ossifrage made 100+ comments at the FAC review page in late November, which took Poeticbent two or three weeks to address.
5. The FAC was archived in mid-December, leading me to embark on a third and "final" copyedit of the article.
6. On May 8th I reread the article and made 45 edits to further improve the prose.

We've waited to renominate because I've been busy with school, but now I have time to address any concerns that may come up during the FAC review. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the reviewers and the nominator from the first FAC: @Squeamish Ossifrage, John, Hamiltonstone, Casliber, and Poeticbent:

"Individuals responsible" table

[edit]

Comment I don't understand what the 'Individuals responsible' section covers: it includes a few dozen people ranging from Himmler to SS corporals, and is obviously only a partial listing of the people involved in establishing and running Treblinka. Can you please clarify the purpose of this section, and its inclusion/exclusion criteria? Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I'll need to defer to Poeticbent on this question, seeing as he is the one responsible for the list's creation. However, I believe that its purpose is to clarify who the major players at Treblinka were and their role within the camp. As such, I would not be opposed to removing individuals who are not mentioned in the article proper and/or who do not currently have articles, especially those in the "Staff" section. Before doing so, I would like to give Poeticbent a chance to respond, though. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard section in most serious monographs sometimes called "Glossary" and "Index of names" (or similar), with their relative jurisdiction summarized and i-links added for easy access. For an article this size, having just one i-link in bodytext is not enough in my view. Besides, the list was added years ago, long before GAN, and if it survived until now I think it should stay. Poeticbent talk 03:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this comment has not been addressed, I'm shifting to oppose this nomination: I don't think that FA level articles should include extraneous material such as this. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say Nick-D that your comment has not been addressed, when the two of us addressed your comment right above. You must mean something different perhaps so please elaborate on why you think the list is extraneous (i.e. not belonging or irrelevant). I'm opened for suggestions, and I'm sure AmericanLemming would agree. Also, would anybody else please give us some feedback here? We all want the article to look the best obviously. Poeticbent talk 13:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I would rather not remove the list entirely, which I know is what Nick-D would prefer, I do have to admit that the current inclusion criteria are rather arbitrary. In my opinion, I think we can improve the list in one of two ways. The first would be to shorten it to include only the Nazi leadership, Treblinka commandants, and deputy commandants. We would then retitle it "Officials responsible" or some other such designation that indicates it's not a complete list. The second would be to remove the list entirely, which would not be my preferred course of action. Either way, I think we should copy and paste the list as it currently stands into an "Individuals responsible for Treblinka extermination camp" article. That way we can include more detail than is really justifiable in the main article. I have a Word document with 60-some names of Treblinka Trawnikis not included at present; a stand-alone list article would allow us to add them. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D: I've now moved the majority of the list into its own article titled List of individuals responsible for Treblinka extermination camp. All that remains is the "Nazi leadership", "Treblinka commandants", and "deputy commandants" section. I hope that this addresses your concern about the inclusion of extraneous material with ambiguous inclusion criteria. I think that the table in its truncated form serves the useful purpose of giving the reader a well-organized summary of the most important individuals responsible for Treblinka, which it previously did not. If you still want to get rid of the whole table, I'm open to that possibility, but I don't see the need to. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the purpose of the 'Nazi leadership' section?; it seems a rather partial list (not least as it omits Hitler). Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now deleted Himmler and retitled it "Operation Reinhard leadership". The table is now laser-focused on the most pertinent individuals, and the inclusion criteria are very specific and clear. It was a bit of a pain to move most of the table to its own article, but I think it's all for the best. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brigade Piron

[edit]

If I may, I'd like to suggest:

1. The Totenkopf symbol be removed from the infobox, per the MOS.
Done. I assume you're referring to the part of MOS:INFOBOX where it states "Avoid flag icons in info boxes"? AmericanLemming (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. The "Memorial at Treblinka" image be removed from the slightly awkward template, and moved properly into the section ("Treblinka I") it's creeping into.
Done. After a a disastrous first attempt, I have split up the two images. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Armia Krajowa, Deutsche Reichsbahn and all other foreign phrases into italics, please. This may just be an oversight? A bracketed translation would be nice too.
Done. I think I've italicized them all now, and I've translated all of them except for the SS officer rank names. Should I do those, too? AmericanLemming (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Perhaps the "Individuals responsible" could be moved into the form of a drop-down menu, like is sometimes seen in sports articles where big templates are used?
Done. It's now been collapsed. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. For the notes, the template:efn is perhaps a bit easier than the currently used system? Less liable to rot, anyway. Apologies, my mistake
Actually, now I look at this, there is something very odd happening with the footnotes... Brigade Piron (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing when I first saw it. We can change the lettering manually (which is a pain), or we can just be consistent and use only template:fen or template:ref. For a quick explanation of what's going on I have copied and pasted part of a discussion from the talk page: AmericanLemming (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion from talk page:
I have two questions about the notes now: one, why is the size of the font for notes a-j smaller than the size for notes j-o, and two, why are there two note js? AmericanLemming (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Most likely a programming error (or lack of communication) between two templates {{efn}} and {{Ref}}, here and here. We use them both side by side for convenience. Poeticbent talk 06:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have manually fixed the problem by shifting the letter of all of the Ref notes down one (k to l, for example) both in the note section itself and in the body of the article. As for the notes a-j and k-p being different sizes, I don't think there's anything we can do about that. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Some overlinking, specifically Höfle Telegram
I've removed that instance as well as a few others. Some remain, but I believe that's justified in an article of this length (9,137 words at last count), especially seeing as the ones I left in are in a different section than the first link. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is pretty clear about this - "a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." (see WP:OVERLINK). Brigade Piron (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can't really argue with that. I've removed the rest of the duplicate links. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'd personally recommend that more pictures from commons:Category:Treblinka extermination camp are included. Don't forget, few people read an entire article. If the pictures can tell some more of the story too, all the better.
Done. I've added 8 more photos, bringing us from 15 to 23. Do let me know if you have any objections on placement, captions, or inclusion. Also, if you think that's not enough, then please do tell me which places in the article need photos; we're kind of running out of room at this point. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. The list of books cited is extremely long. Certainly don't get rid of any, but consider formatting them in columns of reduced size like like this
Done. It took me a while, but I figured out how to make the font smaller. Thanks for the link to the article; I copied and pasted the code directly from there. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is of some interest. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thank you for addressing my comments. The note issue will, unfortunately, have to be resolved though I cannot say that this changes my vote. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've collapsed the "Individuals responsible" table and converted all the ref notes to efn notes, which I believe addresses your two remaining concerns. Thanks for the review! AmericanLemming (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "When the war ended, destitute locals started walking up the so-called Black Road (as they began to call it) in search of manmade nuggets shaped from melted gold in order to buy bread.": Sounds odd; I'm guessing you could buy more than a loaf of bread with a gold nugget. Simplest fix might be just to delete "in order to buy bread", or if you want to describe them as "starving", that could work.
Done. I've changed it to "destitute and starving locals". AmericanLemming (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seidel Straße", "Himmelstraße": Many readers have no idea what an ess-zed is; you might spell it Strasse, or link it, or include an explanatory footnote at the first occurrence of ß.
Done. I've included an explanatory footnote. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those two changes look good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Poeticbent

[edit]

Tremendous amount of work has been put into this article at the time of its last FAC nomination with hundreds of comments already addressed from User:Squeamish Ossifrage, User:AmericanLemming and others including User:Casliber, User:Nikkimaria and User:Piotrus. There were no remaining issues (not to my knowledge) after the ones from User:Hamiltonstone were implemented soon thereafter. The closure was almost procedural because we were all exhausted… and loosing track of things, after a month and a half of work. User:AmericanLemming is correct in that our Treblinka article is "the finest English-language encyclopedia article on Treblinka in the world." Go check it out. It is just an article though, not a book (41 pages in PDF with 0.7 in margins on letter size paper) so perhaps even more could be added with time. For the record, I am (and have been) a significant contributor to this article, and I am also responsible for the GA sticker awarded by User:Khazar2. I will be addressing some of the comments from the reviewers in here because I specialize in this area and know the subject like no-one else. Please bare with me… it is going to be gradual. My only suggestions are as follows: the File:Treblinka Memorial 05.jpg is in a wrong place after it has been cannibalized from the multiple image template and reduced to thumb-size. It shows the quarry stones at Treblinka II, not at Treblinka I. The internal link to Warsaw Ghetto Uprising have been removed in favor of a pipe from the “subsequent uprising” which is insufficient. I don’t understand why the File:WW2-Holocaust-Poland.PNG has also been reduced to thumb-size. I totally agree with User:Brigade Piron that a few more carefully selected images would be beneficial with this amount of sheer prose. Support the nomination wholeheartedly. Poeticbent talk 20:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent: I have changed the size of the two images back to 238px, and the piping has been removed from "subsequent uprising". Hope that addresses your concerns. I've added eight new photos to the article (Wannsee Conference villa, Treblinka I announcement, carbon monoxide chemical formula, Eberl, Stangl, Franz, Treblinka tile, and Simon Wiesenthal) and changed the location and alignment of many of the others. Feel free to comment on the inclusion, placement, size, alignment, and/or caption of any image in the article, or just make the changes you want yourself. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Poeticbent talk 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The second map and the graph could both be slightly larger
Done. Both have been changed from 238 px to 275 px. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:WW2-Holocaust-Poland.PNG: source images here are a bit concerning - File:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png is partly sourced to Wikipedia, while File:Polska_okupacja_1944.png and File:Generalne_gubernatorstwo_1945.png do not identify where their information is coming from
Done. Several sources added; actual base is widely available in textbooks. Poeticbent talk 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Umschlagplatz_loading.jpg: direct source link is dead
Done. Discontinued link replaced with a couple of working ones. This is a common problem: vanishing weblinks to museum pieces in public domain... too bad we don't have a way of fixing it permanently. Poeticbent talk 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Treblinka_Cremation_Pit.jpg: how do we know that this corporation has released the work?
  • File:Samuel_Willenberg_Treblinka_2_sierpnia_2013_01.JPG: I would suggest that the drawings are enough of a focal point in this image for this to be considered a derivative work. What is the copyright status of the drawings? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: Thank you very much for the image review. Unfortunately, tonight I added eight more images, one of which is a non-free upload (Treblinka tile). The new images include Wannsee Conference villa, Treblinka I announcement, carbon monoxide chemical formula, Eberl, Stangl, Franz, Treblinka tile, and Simon Wiesenthal. You'll probably want to review those, too. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review v2

  • Graph could still be larger
Feedback. The graph is a mess. I had to remove it from the Timeline of Treblinka already. I asked its author an a friend User:Volunteer Marek to please make the necessary revisions (here) two weeks ago, but he's busy. "Gimme a day or two" he said on 11 May 2014. Poeticbent talk 18:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Umschlagplatz_loading.jpg: USHMM direct link is dead, and it's not at all clear that they would have held any copyright to this image. Can you elaborate on the licensing?
  • File:DR_Class_52.80_entering_tunnel.jpg: are the creator and uploader the same person? If not, what was the original source of this image?
      • HeizDampf and Uwe B. Pfotenhauer are the same person, if that's what you're asking. As far as I can tell, Uwe B. Pfotenhauer took the photo and uploaded it to the German Wikipedia (as HeizDampf) that same day. Then this Bermicourt chap went and uploaded it to the Commons two years later. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Treblinka_Cremation_Pit.jpg: how do we know that this corporation has released the work?
    • I quote Poeticbent's response from the first FAC, where you asked the same question: "Interesting. If you look at the upload description, it says that the source is http://www.gigatel.co.uk with author Llion Roberts (i.e. Gigatel Cyf. Ltd) but the file description box contains different link to http://www.diapositive.pl. However, we also have other photographs of that memorial if you think that the licensing isn't clear enough".
    • Which I think means I'll need to find a different photograph of the memorial. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Samuel_Willenberg_Treblinka_2_sierpnia_2013_01.JPG: I would suggest that the drawings are enough of a focal point in this image for this to be considered a derivative work. What is the copyright status of the drawings?
  • File:Irmfried_Eberl.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, and lacks the "Reasonable evidence" and second tag required by the current licensing
  • File:Stangl,_Franz.jpg is a non-free image that includes no clear copyright information or FUR for use in this article, and is likely not justifiable. Same with File:Kurt_Hubert_Franz.jpg
    • Image copyright policy is not something I understand very well. But what I think you're saying here is that since the photographs on the commandants are not being used in this article to illustrate the subject of the article, the only way to use them would be to confirm that they are in the public domain, which will be difficult, or get permission to use them with a Creative Commons/GNU license, which will also be difficult. So we're probably going to have to remove them. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of above issues, in particular the final point. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikkimaria: Besides for the camp commandants, all of the other issues have been taken care of. Poeticbent replaced File:Treblinka_Cremation_Pit.jpg with another image of the memorial, cropped File:Samuel_Willenberg_Treblinka_2_sierpnia_2013_01.JPG to make the drawings less of a focal point, and added the new and improved version of the graph. He reverted my removal of the camp commandant images, though, so that issue remains.
  • Poeticbent: Could you explain exactly why you reverted my edit? My understanding is that the presence of the camp commandant photos is one of the few remaining issues holding up promotion, along with prose (now hopefully addressed by Folklore1's copyedit) and a few sources whose reliability has been questioned. I want to keep the images as much as you do, but I'm just not sure that we'll be able to justify their use per Wikipedia's copyright policy. Anyway, we're going to have to find more information about their copyright status if we want to use them in the article. Do you want to do that, or should I? I can start working on it tomorrow afternoon. Let me know what your thoughts are. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All points have been addressed.
  1. File:Treblinka_Cremation_Pit.jpg which lacks evidence of permission from Gigatel Cyf Ltd. corporation (not a living author to my mind) has been tagged for possible deletion in seven days, and replaced with File:Treblinka Cremation Pit 2.jpg which is a crop of the photograph taken at Treblinka by a friend of mine, User:Boston9 from Warsaw, who also took the photograph of Samuel Willenberg.
  2. File:Samuel_Willenberg_Treblinka_2_sierpnia_2013_01.JPG with his drawing being enough of a focal point to be considered a derivative work, has been replaced with File:Samuel Willenberg Treblinka 2 sierpnia 2013 01b.JPG cropped so the work is no longer in full view.
  3. File:Irmfried_Eberl.jpg flagged by User:Svenbot for transfer to Commons has a source now.
  4. File:Stangl,_Franz.jpg, added Non-free media rationale for Treblinka
  5. File:Kurt_Hubert_Franz.jpg, added Non-free media rationale for Treblinka
User:AmericanLemming, just to let you know, the Non-free media rationale for Treblinka is all that was needed. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I have the article on my watch list but not the image files, so I didn't realize you'd taken care of the commandant photos. I'm glad I worded my question as politely as I did! Thanks for dealing with all of the image copyright issues; that's not my strong suit. Anyway, if Nikkimaria is satisfied with your changes, we may very well be a few WP:RS noticeboard postings away from FA status. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin

[edit]

Hi AmericanLemming, I have a query about the sourcing. The first sentence, saying it was a death camp, was sourced to the Jerusalem Post, which in turn referred to a Daily Mail story about a television programme on forensic work conducted there. If there's anything else like that in the article, it would need to be located and replaced. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, I offer up for your scrutiny the second paragraph of the "Day of the revolt and survivors" subsection, as well as the entire "Archeological studies" subsection, as both rely heavily on online newspaper articles. So is the problem with using online newspaper articles in general or just using the Daily Mail in particular? (I understand that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source.) AmericanLemming (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think I would use any newspapers or similar tertiary sources (e.g. Jewish Virtual Library), except for using news stories as primary sources (reports from the period, or later interviews with those involved). Would it not be better to source this entirely to academic sources? The archaeologists, for example, must have written up their studies for peer review. Sorry, I don't meant to be negative. I can see that a tremendous amount of work has gone into this, and I applaud everyone involved. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If newspapers were not WP:RS, then Wikipedia would have absolutely no post-1970 content. Even the Daily Mail has editorial guidance and thus meets the criteria. I would worry if Aryan Front or (perhaps) Socialist Worker was cited, but to my knowledge, there is absolutely no reason that mainstream contemporary newspapers cannot be used... Brigade Piron (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles use the best possible sources available. Thus peer-reviewed scholarly publications are preferred to the popular press.—indopug (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin: Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that academic sources are preferable to newspaper articles, if they are available. The difficulty with the archeological dig and the last two survivors of the camp uprising is that the developments are so recent that we have no academic sources on them. Thus, I'm afraid upgrading the quality of the sourcing in those three paragraphs of the article is non-actionable. The lead archeologist (Dr. Caroline Sturdy Colls) is going to write a book about the dig, but until that's published, what we've got is what we've got.
However, I did replace the Daily Mail with another source. It may not be much more reliable, but at least it's not the Daily Mail. As far as some of the other tertiary sources go, particularly the Jewish Virtual Library and the Aktion Reinhard Camps website, I'll keep digging to see if I can find some academic sources to replace at least a few of them.
And by all means, if you find any other sources of questionable worth besides those relating to the archeological dig or the two last survivors, do let me know. I'll see what I can do. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AmericanLemming, as you asked below for pointers, these are some of the issues with the lead, in case it's helpful. It begins by calling it an extermination camp, but then explains lower down that it was a labour camp too; that contradiction should be smoothed out. It uses the Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team (HEART), a tertiary website run by private researchers, rather than using the sources they cite (e.g. HEART's Clancy Young is cited for the dates, instead of Young's source).

There seems to be a copyright violation where a book has been uploaded to the Hampshire High School Exchange Program and the lead links to it (current footnote 11). That more people died at Treblinka than anywhere other than Auschwitz is sourced to the Associated Press. There's no need to use tertiary sources such as the Jewish Virtual Library, and the point in the footnote about the Anglo-Saxon difference between forced and slave labour seems odd and unnecessary. Regarding the BBC documentary for the exhumation of bodies, there are scholarly sources that deal with this. The final lead paragraph should be radically trimmed; it's currently the longest paragraph but deals only with official ceremonies, the museum, etc. The lead used to say that an unknown number of Romani people were killed there, but that has been removed; I would consider restoring it.

Looking beyond the lead, the beginning of the first section – about the ghetto system being unsustainable and the Wannsee conference – is sourced to a Danish website for primary and secondary schools. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment on the sourcing and other matters; I really appreciate specific comments like those listed above. I have put them below in bullet form so that I can keep track of them. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • extermination camp/labour camp mix-up in lead
Done. Note added to the first sentence. If you're interested in knowing more, see the "Usage of the word camp in the article" section below on this page.
  • HEART source in lead: replace
Done. Replaced with shortened footnote to page 125 of the most recent and comprehensive monograph on Treblinka. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove Associated Press Source
Done. Removed "only at Auschwitz did more people die" from the article. Probably true, but need a RS that says it to include it. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • don’t use Jewish Virtual Library or HEART or ARC
  • Anglo-Saxon difference: cut
Done. Removed. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • inline citation number 11: Christopher Browning copy-vio
Done. Removed offending link; cited as a paper book. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC documentary: replace with scholarly source
  • Radically trim final paragraph of the lead
Done. Now at 140 words versus 134 words for the previous paragraph. More importantly, excessive detail has been removed. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-add “unknown number of Romani people”
Done. Added a paragraph about them to the article using a RS and re-added to the lead. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • about the ghetto system being unsustainable and the Wannsee conference: get a better source
Done Found two scholarly journal articles that cover the same information. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • footnote 150: get a better source
  • Hi AmericanLemming, perhaps it would help to compile a small list of the specialist secondary sources, then more or less stick to what they say, noting disagreements along the way. You could then augment that with primary-source material, so long it's material the secondary sources have acknowledged.

    For each source it's important to be able to explain why you used that source for that point, i.e. why that was the most appropriate source (or one of several appropriate ones) for the particular issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi again, could you remember to add page numbers for the journal articles? For example, 27 pages is too large a range here – Friedman, Philip (January 1954). "The Jewish Ghettos of the Nazi Era". Jewish Social Studies (Indiana University Press) 16 (1): 61–88. I'd quite like to check what the source says in support of that point about the ghettos. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we need a time reference for videos – for example, for the Suchomel interview (footnote 78b in the gas chambers section), which is on YouTube. That sentence could use a rewrite, by the way. He says they could "perhaps" (vielleicht) hear; but the point was not what they could hear, it was that they were panicking, and the word "even" needs to go (the sentence needs to be rewritten) because that's the first thing to expect in that situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't sure whether the page range was for the entire article or solely for the information being cited. I've given more specific page numbers for all four scholarly sources I've added. The relevant quote from the source on the ghettos is as follows:
"In the ghetto itself the Jews were compressed in crowded quarters, located for the most part in the poorest sections of the town, without parks or squares. The food supply was strictly and precisely controlled and the earning capacities of the inhabitants were reduced to a minimum. The combination of all these sanitary and economic conditions served to raise the rate of mortality. The ghettos were designed to serve the Nazis as laboratories for testing the methods of slow and "peaceful" destruction of whole groups of human beings." AmericanLemming (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite useful to have both the page range and the page that's your reference, but I don't know how to do that with the templates (I don't use them myself). In case it's helpful, there's an EB article on Treblinka by Michael Berenbaum here, which you can use as a source for the numbers (more killed there than anywhere other than Auschwitz). The Snyder footnote 6 is unclear, by the way; the short ref needs a page number, and the long ref is confusing (that is, is Snyder the source or the others, and what are they saying?).
I'm concerned about the range of numbers. I'm not seeing that same range in the sources I've looked up. Berenbaum, for example, says "750,000 or more," and Yad Vashem says 870,000. Which secondary sources support 1,200,000?
I wonder whether it would make sense to withdraw the nomination so you have more time to go through the article. Then perhaps you could request a peer review, or even go straight to peer review. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information about the figures, Poeticbent. Does Kopówka & Paweł Rytel-Andrianik (2011) agree with the 1,200,000 figure, or is it simply reported as Ząbecki's view? Do any other secondary sources agree with Ząbecki? It makes sense to use Polish historians here, but the language issue introduces a verifiability problem. The policy suggests adding relevant portions to the footnote or talk page, and if quoting always adding a translation, again in the footnote. But I know that's a nuisance when there's a lot of it, so I'm not sure what to suggest. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SlimVirgin. The cumulative estimates for Treblinka (similar to other death camps) are controversial. There's no such thing as a quotable single figure that wouldn't be challenged by someone else. However, some figures are more prominent than others if not more definitive. Reputable historians including Kopówka & Rytel-Andrianik usually limit themselves to reporting the findings, that's all. Kopówka writes on page 114: "Na tablicy informacyjnej przed wejściem na teren obozu widnieje liczba 800 tys. Należy ją przyjąć jako podstawę... Wyliczenie liczby zamordowanych opiera się głównie na dokumentach Niemieckiej Kolei Rzeszy, wykradzionych przez polskiego kolejarza Franciszka Ząbeckiego, i na różnego rodzaju obliczeniach z gett okupowanej Polski." On the information board at the entrance to the camp there's a number of 800,000 victims quoted. It ought to be seen as the basis... It has been drawn from the German waybills stolen by Franciszek Ząbecki at the control house; but also, based on estimates from the ghettos in occupied Poland themselves. -- Kopówka devoted a small chapter in his book to various estimates beginning on page 113 ("10. liczba ofiar", see PDF file, direct download 20.2 MB. [1]). All known estimates are mentioned there in a matter-of-factly way, from the unrealistic 3 million by Vasily Grossman, down to 1,582,000 by Ryszard Czarkowski, to 780,000 by Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz, down to 700,000 followed by 900,000 (from Wolfgang Scheffler) by Düsseldorf court, Raul Hilberg’s 750,000 and Martin Gilbert’s 850,000 (same as Yitzhak Arad’s 850,000) followed by Czesław Madajczyk’s 700,000–800,000 and finally 713,555 by Sturmbannführer Höfle. Ząbecki's estimate, from his already famous Wspomnienia dawne i nowe [Old and New Memories] published in 1977, is confirmed by Piotr Ząbecki, who wrote the biography of his own father Franciszek for the Życie Siedleckie newspaper. Ząbecki's number is 1,297,000.[2] The third highest after Ryszard Czarkowski’s estimated 1,582,000 victims. This is all we know. Poeticbent talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. What I'm wondering is whether any historians support Ząbecki's estimate. Our article emphasizes it over other estimates, but that emphasis seems to be based only on Ząbecki himself. The academic secondary sources I've looked at cite lower figures. For example, Timothy Snyder (Snyder 2011, p. 273) cites 780,863. This article used to do the same; the emphasis on Ząbecki's figure is a recent development. I'm concerned that the article is deviating from the standard view, and without signalling that it's doing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Snyder citing 780,863 is simply repeating the 713,555 from Reichsbahn quoted by Sturmbannführer Höfle with the addition of 67,308 persons in 1943 from another German document (713,555 + 67,308 = 780,863). Basic arithmetic; however, such exactness is almost laughable; because one of the least reliable figures in my view are the Reichsbahn train tickets sold to SS. It is known for a fact that more trains came, on top of the road transport. Our Wikipedia article should present the estimates exactly how I described them above. All sources ought to be named even though not all of them have Wikipedia articles.** Ząbecki is not above the others. He saw and counted the cattle wagons passing through that's why his mention matters so much, but he could not have known how many victims were locked inside exactly. He opted for the known maximum capacity rather than less. This was not 100% true; the average was 5,000 people per trainset except for the Grossaktion Warsaw (1942).[3]

*) Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz, “Obóz zagłady Treblinka,” in: Biuletyn Głównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, I, 1946, p. 142.
*) Ryszard Czarkowski, Cieniom Treblinki [To Shadows of Treblinka], Wydawn. Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej 1989. ISBN-10: 831107724X.

Poeticbent talk 04:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have transferred all of the above information into article's section "Death count". Please take a look. Thanks. Your further comments are welcomed. Poeticbent talk 06:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary absence: SlimVirgin and Poeticbent: I just wanted to let you two know that I won't be available to work on further improving the article's sourcing this upcoming week; I'm studying abroad in Spain and I've got two essays, two presentations, a lengthy reflection paper, and a final on my plate. Poeticbent, do you think you could address SlimVirgin's concerns about some of the sources while I'm temporarily off-wiki? I'm not sure how much more time the FAC coordinators are going to give us to improve the article; Treblinka is the second to last FAC on the list, and the coordinators tend to either archive or promote such FACs in fairly short order. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Driveby comment about the lead The lead has an inelegant "sea of blue" look to it. I feel it would appear much more readable if you cut overlinking (genocide, pyre, WW2, mass graves, Jews, Warsaw) and removed the references (not needed per WP:LEAD).—indopug (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed all of the links you suggested along with one extra one ([[|unfree labor|prisoner]]. Also, I've removed all inline citations except those regarding the number of people who died at the camp, seeing as those numbers are quite controversial.
  • As for the inline citation about "men, women, and children" dying there, I believe that it refers to the preceding three sentences as a whole, and as such I have moved it one sentence back to make it clear that it's the citation for the number of people killed, not just the "men, women, children" part.
  • Anyway, I hope that addresses your concerns, and the reason why I kept a few inline citations is because the other main editor of the article, Poeticbent, feels very strongly that, given the controversy over the number of people killed at Treblinka, we need to be very clear about where we're getting those numbers from. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I disagree with the removal of many of the above links from the lede. The problem with people who don't deal with the Holocaust controversies in their wiki experience is that they normally don't realize how serious it is out there in the world of external sources. Please put the links back especially the ones at the end of paragraphs. We need to lead by example, and I'm sure User:Indopug will understand. Poeticbent talk 05:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've reverted my own edits for now. I don't have a strong feeling on this issue one way or another; I just want the article to get promoted to FA status. Anyway, I will need clarification from both of you on what exactly your positions are on this issue: Poeticbent, do you feel that we should keep both the internal links (World War II, genocide, Jews, etc.) and the inline citations ({{sfn|Arad|1987|p=37}}, for example), or just one or the other? And indopug, what do you say to Poeticbent's argument that an article related to the Holocaust is controversial enough that we should cite our sources, even in the lead? Which is more important, readability or backing up our claims everywhere, including the lead?
  • Also, I'll throw in this quote from Squemish Ossifrage from this article's first FAC: "Not strictly actionable, but material cited in the article's body is not required to be cited in the lead. The idea is that the lead is purely a summary or abstract of the following article. Opinions seem mixed here at FAC about whether FA articles must or simply may take that approach; I prefer it, but I wouldn't oppose on those grounds alone." AmericanLemming (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no need for rehashing the self-explanatory notes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations, but here's the relevant quote for the record: "... there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations..." End of quote. Read the whole section if you want. For me, that's enough of a guideline. Please do not worry, AmericanLemming. This discussion has no bearing on the outcome of your FAC. Poeticbent talk 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Henrik

[edit]

Comments on prose. This is a hugely important article, and I commend the authors on their word in bringing it close to FA status. Awkward sentences abound however.

    • Many instances of "the crawler excavator" (I counted four). Why 'the'? If the crawler excavator is significant to the history of the camp, it should be explained.
      • Well, there was only one crawler excavator, and it dug the mass graves for the corpses, then dug up the mass graves, and thereafter dug the cremation pits where the corpses from the mass graves where buried. It was kind of important. However, I have changed all four instances of "the crawler excavator" to "a crawler excavator". AmericanLemming (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Treblinka is referred to as a camp divided into two sections (sometimes called subcamps, sometimes called camps), but in the Treblinka II section there are suddenly 'Camp 1', 'Camp 2' and 'Camp 3'. The terminology for the whole, the main subdivisions and the subsubdivisions isn't consistent.
      • Fixing this issue would be difficult, but I personally don't think it gets in the way of the reader's understanding, as they can figure out which camp we're referring to from the context. However, if you still think that it's worth fixing, take a look at my detailed analysis of the use of the word "camp" in the article (it occurs 150 times in the article proper alone). It's the section under this one. Hopefully it gives you some ideas. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that the number killed is controversial, but the last two sentences of the first paragraph doesn't flow. Can you rephrase it as a consensus range among sources instead? It's better in the first start of the 'Death count' section. "The victims included men, women, and children" needs to either go or be reworded to more descriptive. As it is not it is a rather cold statement that doesn't help the reader understand the magnitude of the horrors.
    • In background, first paragraph: "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" (German: die Endlösung der Judenfrage)" should link to Final Solution, not Jewish Question, and I'm not sure about the necessity of the German translation given that it's in the Final Solution article.
    • In background, Treblinka I: "Founded officially on 15 November 1941". Was it unofficially founded some other time?
    • Second half of second paragraph of Treblinka I under background has many somewhat disjoint short sentences.
    • Most German terms are translated or explained inline, but Wachmänner and Volksdeutsche are footnotes instead.
    • Some measurements include imperial equivalents, other do not. It's not consistent.
    • Quite a few others, my general impression is that the text overall needs another round of massaging to reach the level of brilliant prose.
  • Another thing: I'd prefer citations to not be placed in the middle of sentences unless it's something very controversial, as they break the flow of reading (the MoS doesn't back me up on this however).

Thank you for for writing this however, I'm not sure I could stomach the hours of research into this ghastly subject. henrik•talk 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmm. Well, Henrik, you and I really have three options on how to deal with the quality of the prose:
      • 1. You can point out every specific instance where the prose needs to be improved, and I can fix it. Easy for me, lots of work for you.
      • 2. You can point out widespread issues or sections of the article where improvements need to be made, like you've done above, and I can work on those. Easy for you, lots of work for me.
      • 3. You can suggest I request a copyedit from the Guid of Copy-Editors, and they can take care of it. Easy for both of us, but it might take a while for something to act on that request.
    • Anyway, thank you for taking the time to review the article and pointing out things that I missed during my first four copyedits of the article. I imagine that you'll probably choose option number 2, which is fine, since I've got lots of time this week. BTW, you should thank Poeticbent for doing all of the research; I'm just the copy-editor. Four copy-edits and the prose still isn't up to snuff. Argh... AmericanLemming (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "camp" in the article

[edit]

There are 176 instances of the word “camp” in the article when looking at the source code.

  • There are 3 instances in the infobox, 1 of which refers to Treblinka as a whole and 2 of which refer to Treblinka II.
  • There are 13 instances in the lead, 8 of which refer to Treblinka II, 1 of which refers to Treblinka I, 1 of which refers to Treblinka as a whole, and 3 of which refer to other camps/Nazi camps in general.
  • There are 46 instances in the “Background” section, 14 of which refer to Treblinka II, 5 of which refer to Treblinka I, 1 of which refers to Treblinka as a whole, 14 of which refer to Treblinka II’s three subcamps, and 11 of which refer to other camps/Nazi camps in general.
  • There are 19 instances in the “Killing process” section, 13 of which refer to Treblinka II and 6 of which refer to other camps/Nazi camps in general.
  • There are 13 instances in the “Organization of the camp” section, 6 of which refer to Treblinka II, 3 of which refer to Treblinka II’s three subcamps, and 4 of which refer to other camps/Nazi camps in general.
  • There are 11 instances in the “Treblinka prisoner uprising” section, all 11 of which refer to Treblinka II.
  • There are 21 instances in the “Operational command of Treblinka II” section, 17 of which refer to Treblinka II and 4 of which refer to other camps/Nazi camps in general.
  • There are 6 instances in the “Death count” section, all 6 of which refer to Treblinka II.
  • There are 11 instances in the “Arrival of the Soviets” section, all 11 of which refer to Treblinka II.
  • There are 8 instances in the “Treblinka trials” section, 5 of which refer to Treblinka II and 3 of which refer to other camps/Nazi camps in general.
  • The remainder of the article (the collapsible chart and citations) has 26 instances of the word “camp”, but these are not as relevant as the instances that appear in the article proper.

Adding up the totals above gives 177 instances, more or less consistent with my total count.

  1. Treblinka II: 2 + 8 + 14 + 13 + 6 + 11 + 17 + 6 + 11 + 5 = 93
  2. Treblinka I: 1 + 5 = 6
  3. Treblinka as a whole: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
  4. Treblinka II’s subcamps: 14 + 3 = 17
  5. Other camps: 3 + 11 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 3 = 31

These totals add up to 150.

To give you a more tangible representation of what these numbers mean, take a look at the percentages (out of 150):

  • Treblinka II: 93/150 = 62%
  • Treblinka I: 6/150 = 4%
  • Treblinka as a whole: 3/150 = 2%
  • Treblinka II’s subcamps: 17/150 = 11%
  • Other camps: 31/150 = 21%

These percentages add up to 100%. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

while others who ran 30 kilometers (19 miles) nonstop like Sperling - I think I'd leave "nonstop" out.
he was a former boxer with the power to easily deliver knockout punches. - I think I'd leave this out and just prefix his name as "ex-boxer"
"Nonstop" has been removed, and I've reworded the part about Kurt Franz to just talk about him beating prisoners to death and setting his dog on them. The former wording doesn't tell you whether or not he punched prisoners, just that he was good at it, while the current wording removes that ambiguity. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15 June 2014 update

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: This FAC has been going on for slightly over five weeks and is currently the third from the bottom of the list. It has received a somewhat ambivalent response; there have been no strong opposes, but neither has it been awash with the quick supports that often characterize the FACs of editors with many FAs under their belts.

Anyway, I thought that I would try my best to summarize the FAC as it currently stands, as that will help both the coordinators and I to gauge the current state of affairs and figure out what needs to happen next. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of affairs
[edit]
  1. Nick-D: comment on “Individuals responsible” table: currently unaddressed; opposes promotion
  2. Brigade Piron: fair number of comments; all addressed, supports promotion
  3. Dank: a few copy-edits and comments on prose; all addressed, supports promotion on prose
  4. Poeticbent: significant contributor; two or three comments; all addressed, strongly supports promotion
  5. Nikkimaria: two image reviews; we have attempted to address her concerns but she has not looked over our changes; opposes promotion
  6. SlimVirgin: general comment on quality of sourcing; half unresolved/half non-actionable
  7. indopug: comment on internal links and inline citation in the lead: non-actionable
  8. Henrik: fair number of comments on prose; I have attempted to address all specific comments; general impression is that the text overall needs another round of massaging to reach the level of brilliant prose
  9. Casliber: two comments on prose: tentative support on prose and comprehensiveness

Other note:

Per Henrik’s comment on the quality of the prose, I requested a GOCE copy-edit on 8 June 2014, leading Folklore1 to copy-edit the article on 11 June 2014.
Going forward
[edit]

From the above I get the impression that the article's promotion to FA status is currently hung up on the following three issues: image copyright, quality of the prose, and quality of a few of the sources. My comments on the three are as follows:

1. Image copyright: I believe that Poeticbent and I (more Poeticbent than me, really) have addressed or at least attempted to address all of Nikkimaria's comments regarding image copyright. My understanding is that at this point we are waiting for her to look over our changes and see whether she deems them adequate.
2. Quality of the prose: Only one reviewer has raised significant concerns regarding the prose: Henrik. I've left a note at his talk page asking him to look over my changes, but he has yet to do so. The relevant diff is here: Special:Diff/611164657. Seeing as he's the only one with deep concerns about the prose, I'm inclined to think that his unfavorable view has more to do with stylistic preferences than poorly written sentences. Nevertheless, the article is long enough that it can use as many eyes on it as it can get, so even after the GOCE copy-edit I still plan to message hamilotstone and John and see if they would be willing to take another look.
3. Quality of a few of the sources: SlimVirgin has raised some concerns about the quality of some of the sources. In particular, she is opposed to the use of any newspapers or tertiary sources on the subject. While I understand not using unreliable newspapers as sources (the Daily Mail, for example), not using newspapers at all means that the most recent developments regarding Treblinka would have to be removed, thereby making the article less comprehensive. Anyway, I will start a WP:RS noticeboard posting about newspapers in general and two specific sources that are potentially unreliable: the Jewish Virtual Library and Aktion Reinhard Camps.

The above states what I plan to do to further improve the article and get it promoted by late June/early July. If the coordinators have any advice going forward or anything else they would like to see done (like a source review, for example), know that I greatly appreciate any feedback you give me. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the nomination to be archived

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: , SlimVirgin, and Poeticbent: As the nominator, I request that this nomination be archived. The sourcing issues in particular are going me a while to sort out; you can't replace 30-40 inline citations overnight. Additionally, the "Death count" section needs to be completely reworked; it has all the right information, but it's organized in a very confusing manner. I'm going to add a table on the 15 estimates to help the reader (and me) keep things straight. Lastly, I feel the article would be incomplete without a short section on historiography at the end.

All the above is going to take me a long time to do, especially considering the fact that I'm studying abroad in Spain this month. I'm planning for a late July/early August renomination once all the kinks have been taken care of. Now that I have a much better idea of what the FA criteria entail in practice, I don't see any reason why the article wouldn't pass the third time around, once the sourcing has been improved. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take care of that. Good luck with the next iteration. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Treblinka_extermination_camp/archive2&oldid=1109756712"