The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Treblinka extermination camp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has just achieved good article status on October 24, 2013 through a long but immensely insightful review process and therefore I believe it's now in a good enough state to be considered as a Featured Article candidate. Treblinka is the core subject of the history of the Holocaust, and Poland in the 20th century as well, and thus deserves more focused attention and discussion, specified for FA. Poeticbent talk 14:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Rather than update the status of my previous concerns, since it's been a little while, and there's been a lot of work done, I've collapsed what remains of that section, shuffled it off to Talk, and started anew as though this was a novel review. Unfortunately, I still must oppose promotion at this time. This article's closer, but it's not there yet. Unlike my prior reviews, I'm going to try to comment on prose issues as well, and will break this up by section:
Calling this here for the night. I may try to get back to this review and finish out later. Regardless, I really can't support on prose grounds right now. The military history project does an excellent job with copyediting. If this article fails FAC (which I believe it will, and should), you may want to submit it to their A-Class process before coming back here. They're good at this sort of thing, and I'm very much not.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
Oppose on prose, based on a preliminary reading of the article. Fuller review to follow. -- John ( talk) 21:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Lead
Background
Sources
Are we in American or British English here? I see examples of both. -- John ( talk) 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from AmericanLemming
|
---|
It seems that this FAC has stalled somewhat, so I'd thought I'd offer some input of my own. Note that these comments are unresolved issues from my copyedit of this article for GA status; they were (rightly) deemed too picky for a GA review and thus left alone. Anyway, here we are at FAC and it seems that they might be appropriate in this situation. This is only the second time I've contributed at FAC, so I don't know whether or not addressing my concerns is necessary to fulfill the FA criteria; what I do know is that addressing them would make the article better. Anyway, these comments are meant to give the nominator some ideas on how to further improve the article while the other reviewers get around to finishing their review of the article's prose. I will continue to watch this review page and the article itself. AmericanLemming ( talk) 22:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Alright, I've now reread the article and copy-edited it again (as you can see by looking at the article's history). Additionally, I've collapsed most of my remaining GA comments, as they were either addressed or non-actionable. I apologize for not following the GA review quite as closely as I should have before posting these recommendations at FAC; I got rather busy with my studies. Anyway, the good news is you don't very many issues left from the GA review to address. The bad news is I found a few more issues during my latest copy-edit. Again, I don't know if addressing my concerns is necessary for FA status, but I do think taking them into consideration would further improve the article. AmericanLemming ( talk) 06:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply Recommendations left over from GA Review First third
Killing process
Organization of the camp
Treblinka prisoner uprising As a general comment, the first two paragraphs of "Treblinka prisoner uprising" are in need of much improvement. I think it's got all the necessary information; it's just not presented in a particularly coherent matter. As a second general comment, if they killed off all of the Sonderkommandos every few days, how did Lejcher managed to stick around for three months and plan the uprising?
Alright, my three last remaining issues with this section are somewhat related, I think.
Operational command
Death count
After the war
"the collapse of the Soviet empire" I understand many Poles have hard feelings toward the Soviet Union, but in the interest of NPOV it might be best to stick with "Soviet Union".
Treblinka trials and footnotes
New FAC Comments Lead
Background
Killing process You mention Stangl by his last name only without linking his name, even though this is the first time he's mentioned in the article. I suggest giving his full name, mentioning his status as the camp commandant, and linking his name.
Organization of the camp
Operational command
Treblinka prisoner uprising "The Jews of Treblinka became increasingly concerned about their own fate" I think you mean only those in the Sonderkommando who were most resilient to stress? The vast majority of Jews were killed within hours of arrival, and most of the Sonderkommando Jews were killed within a few days. AmericanLemming ( talk) 04:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC) After the war reply
Individuals responsible
|
Support Two copy-edits, 100-some comments, and 350+ edits later, I support the promotion of this article on the basis of its prose and comprehensiveness. AmericanLemming ( talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I am partly a reviewer, having offered 80-100 comments and suggestions on how to improve the article, and partly a significant contributor, having made those aforementioned 375 edits and having responded to comments by other FAC reviewers.
I offer my apologies for not disclosing this COI sooner. I offer my apologies for not mentioning my role as a significant contributor sooner. I'll try to remember next time.
AmericanLemming (
talk)
11:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
In light of the extensive changes made to the article in the wake of Squemish Ossifrage's comments, I intend to reread the article, if nothing else for prose considerations. However, since I am frantically cramming for an organic chemistry final this week and next, this will happen sometime between December 13-15. My intention to reread it is not meant to revoke my support given above but rather to further fine-tune the prose in light of a substantial revision to the article. Additionally, I will reread the article whether or not it passes or fails its FAC here; I've put so many hours into copy-editing and reviewing it that I want to make it the best it can be. AmericanLemming ( talk) 08:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
One thing I would point out, PoeticBent, is that articles seem to need at least 5-6 reviewers to pass FAC. I happen to know that because I stalk the FAC candidates page. If the delegate deems that the article "hasn't had enough eyes on it", they won't archive it after a month (that is, fail it); they'll leave it open for another few weeks to see if a few more people will look it over.
I would suggest posting on Squeamish Ossifrage's and John's talk pages and asking them to finish their reviews by the next week or at least by the end of the month. Additionally, I would recommend asking around at WikiProject Poland and Wikiproject Military History (or any other relevant Wikiproject, for that matter) to see if anyone's willing to review the article. Furthermore, if there are any editors you know who might be willing to review the article, you could ask them as well. AmericanLemming ( talk) 18:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'll have another look once John and Squeamish Ossifrage have revisited their opposition above. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I have reviewed this prior to WP:GAN at Talk:Treblinka_extermination_camp#Pre-Ga_comments. I would like to ask other reviewers if anyone has done a spotcheck on references to see if all content claimed to be referenced in fact is referenced? My spotcheck few months ago suggested it wasn't the case. If it is fixed now, I would probably support this, but until it is confirmed this is not an issue I cannot do so. Unfortunately, I don't have time nor will to do a second ref spotcheck now myself. Please echo me if there are any replies to me here. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
oppose for similar reasons to Squeamish above. Despite all the work that has gone on here, there are too many problems with the text. Some examples (i have not read the full article):
Sorry, just too many prose problems that don't meet the standard for FA, in my view anyway. hamiltonstone ( talk) 13:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open a month and a half, there are too many concerns with this nom for it to have a chance of achieving consensus to promote any time soon. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly. Per the FAC instructions, a nominator whose FAC has been archived must wait a minimum two weeks before nominating the same (or another) article. Poeticbent, I recommend that you use that time (or more as necessary) to work on the outstanding issues and then take the article to Peer Review or MilHist A-Class Review or even both, inviting the reviewers here (particularly those who have opposed promotion) to look over your improvements, before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Treblinka extermination camp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has just achieved good article status on October 24, 2013 through a long but immensely insightful review process and therefore I believe it's now in a good enough state to be considered as a Featured Article candidate. Treblinka is the core subject of the history of the Holocaust, and Poland in the 20th century as well, and thus deserves more focused attention and discussion, specified for FA. Poeticbent talk 14:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Rather than update the status of my previous concerns, since it's been a little while, and there's been a lot of work done, I've collapsed what remains of that section, shuffled it off to Talk, and started anew as though this was a novel review. Unfortunately, I still must oppose promotion at this time. This article's closer, but it's not there yet. Unlike my prior reviews, I'm going to try to comment on prose issues as well, and will break this up by section:
Calling this here for the night. I may try to get back to this review and finish out later. Regardless, I really can't support on prose grounds right now. The military history project does an excellent job with copyediting. If this article fails FAC (which I believe it will, and should), you may want to submit it to their A-Class process before coming back here. They're good at this sort of thing, and I'm very much not.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
Oppose on prose, based on a preliminary reading of the article. Fuller review to follow. -- John ( talk) 21:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Lead
Background
Sources
Are we in American or British English here? I see examples of both. -- John ( talk) 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from AmericanLemming
|
---|
It seems that this FAC has stalled somewhat, so I'd thought I'd offer some input of my own. Note that these comments are unresolved issues from my copyedit of this article for GA status; they were (rightly) deemed too picky for a GA review and thus left alone. Anyway, here we are at FAC and it seems that they might be appropriate in this situation. This is only the second time I've contributed at FAC, so I don't know whether or not addressing my concerns is necessary to fulfill the FA criteria; what I do know is that addressing them would make the article better. Anyway, these comments are meant to give the nominator some ideas on how to further improve the article while the other reviewers get around to finishing their review of the article's prose. I will continue to watch this review page and the article itself. AmericanLemming ( talk) 22:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Alright, I've now reread the article and copy-edited it again (as you can see by looking at the article's history). Additionally, I've collapsed most of my remaining GA comments, as they were either addressed or non-actionable. I apologize for not following the GA review quite as closely as I should have before posting these recommendations at FAC; I got rather busy with my studies. Anyway, the good news is you don't very many issues left from the GA review to address. The bad news is I found a few more issues during my latest copy-edit. Again, I don't know if addressing my concerns is necessary for FA status, but I do think taking them into consideration would further improve the article. AmericanLemming ( talk) 06:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply Recommendations left over from GA Review First third
Killing process
Organization of the camp
Treblinka prisoner uprising As a general comment, the first two paragraphs of "Treblinka prisoner uprising" are in need of much improvement. I think it's got all the necessary information; it's just not presented in a particularly coherent matter. As a second general comment, if they killed off all of the Sonderkommandos every few days, how did Lejcher managed to stick around for three months and plan the uprising?
Alright, my three last remaining issues with this section are somewhat related, I think.
Operational command
Death count
After the war
"the collapse of the Soviet empire" I understand many Poles have hard feelings toward the Soviet Union, but in the interest of NPOV it might be best to stick with "Soviet Union".
Treblinka trials and footnotes
New FAC Comments Lead
Background
Killing process You mention Stangl by his last name only without linking his name, even though this is the first time he's mentioned in the article. I suggest giving his full name, mentioning his status as the camp commandant, and linking his name.
Organization of the camp
Operational command
Treblinka prisoner uprising "The Jews of Treblinka became increasingly concerned about their own fate" I think you mean only those in the Sonderkommando who were most resilient to stress? The vast majority of Jews were killed within hours of arrival, and most of the Sonderkommando Jews were killed within a few days. AmericanLemming ( talk) 04:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC) After the war reply
Individuals responsible
|
Support Two copy-edits, 100-some comments, and 350+ edits later, I support the promotion of this article on the basis of its prose and comprehensiveness. AmericanLemming ( talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I am partly a reviewer, having offered 80-100 comments and suggestions on how to improve the article, and partly a significant contributor, having made those aforementioned 375 edits and having responded to comments by other FAC reviewers.
I offer my apologies for not disclosing this COI sooner. I offer my apologies for not mentioning my role as a significant contributor sooner. I'll try to remember next time.
AmericanLemming (
talk)
11:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
In light of the extensive changes made to the article in the wake of Squemish Ossifrage's comments, I intend to reread the article, if nothing else for prose considerations. However, since I am frantically cramming for an organic chemistry final this week and next, this will happen sometime between December 13-15. My intention to reread it is not meant to revoke my support given above but rather to further fine-tune the prose in light of a substantial revision to the article. Additionally, I will reread the article whether or not it passes or fails its FAC here; I've put so many hours into copy-editing and reviewing it that I want to make it the best it can be. AmericanLemming ( talk) 08:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
One thing I would point out, PoeticBent, is that articles seem to need at least 5-6 reviewers to pass FAC. I happen to know that because I stalk the FAC candidates page. If the delegate deems that the article "hasn't had enough eyes on it", they won't archive it after a month (that is, fail it); they'll leave it open for another few weeks to see if a few more people will look it over.
I would suggest posting on Squeamish Ossifrage's and John's talk pages and asking them to finish their reviews by the next week or at least by the end of the month. Additionally, I would recommend asking around at WikiProject Poland and Wikiproject Military History (or any other relevant Wikiproject, for that matter) to see if anyone's willing to review the article. Furthermore, if there are any editors you know who might be willing to review the article, you could ask them as well. AmericanLemming ( talk) 18:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'll have another look once John and Squeamish Ossifrage have revisited their opposition above. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I have reviewed this prior to WP:GAN at Talk:Treblinka_extermination_camp#Pre-Ga_comments. I would like to ask other reviewers if anyone has done a spotcheck on references to see if all content claimed to be referenced in fact is referenced? My spotcheck few months ago suggested it wasn't the case. If it is fixed now, I would probably support this, but until it is confirmed this is not an issue I cannot do so. Unfortunately, I don't have time nor will to do a second ref spotcheck now myself. Please echo me if there are any replies to me here. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
oppose for similar reasons to Squeamish above. Despite all the work that has gone on here, there are too many problems with the text. Some examples (i have not read the full article):
Sorry, just too many prose problems that don't meet the standard for FA, in my view anyway. hamiltonstone ( talk) 13:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open a month and a half, there are too many concerns with this nom for it to have a chance of achieving consensus to promote any time soon. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly. Per the FAC instructions, a nominator whose FAC has been archived must wait a minimum two weeks before nominating the same (or another) article. Poeticbent, I recommend that you use that time (or more as necessary) to work on the outstanding issues and then take the article to Peer Review or MilHist A-Class Review or even both, inviting the reviewers here (particularly those who have opposed promotion) to look over your improvements, before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply