Talk:Treblinka extermination camp/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Review

I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow hopefully later today. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Only made it through the lead before Little Miss Khazar had a meltdown, but one point before I forget it-- isn't a "forced labour Arbeitslager" a redundancy? Much more soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

More:

• Sonderkommando is written with the plural at some points but not others; this should be made consistent.
• The fact that it's now a national monument seems worth mentioning in the lead section
• "The Nazi plan to murder Polish Jews from across General Government, codenamed Aktion Reinhard, " -- this seems redundant, since you've just explained what this and linked it in the previous paragraph
• Why is Auschwitz I italicized when Auschwitz II isn't?
• "The staff of Operation Reinhard used the Action T4 euthanasia program as a basic framework for the construction of facilities" -- so was this the model, or was Chelmo? The explanation is a little confusing here.
• the Treblinka railroad station -- you might clarify that this is the railroad station of the town, not of the camp -- or is it the other way around?
• "The Totenlager was conveniently placed approximately halfway between the largest Jewish ghetto in all of Nazi occupied Europe; the Ghetto in Warsaw with up to 500,000 inmates,[29] and the Białystok Ghetto in the capital of Bezirk Bialystok with up to 60,000 Jews" -- I'm unclear what the semicolon is doing in this sentence; usually one is used to join two complete sentences (like here).
• "Right from the start, it was split into separate zones." -- is the "it" here the Totenlager? Generally a pronoun should refer to the last possible noun, which in this case would be the Bezirk Bialystok--but I don't think that's what you mean.
• The term "Totenlager" should be translated at some point; it's confusing to alternate between this and "extermination camp".
• "roe deer (1943)" -- he got the idea in 1943? Or did he actually build this in 1943?
• It could be made more clear why "Material gain" is under "Treblinka Trials"--there's no mention of the trials in this subsection.
• "the remaining two being Belzec and Sobibor" -- so were the three camps set up for Reinhard Treblinka and these two? Or Chelmo and these two? I've rewritten this in the way I think is correct, but feel free to doublecheck me (and revert if necessary).

Okay, I'm going to stop here for a bit. My initial impression is that the article is fairly comprehensive, and very well-sourced. But I think it could use a thorough copyedit--there's a good deal of odd phrasing, mispunctuation, points needing clarity, etc. I've given some examples of these above and in my edits directly to the article. So you can go over this again yourself, or if you'd like outside help, you might ask at the guild of Copyeditors, who are always very helpful. I don't mind doing it myself later if it comes to that, but I think that enough work might be necessary that I'd be disqualified as the article's reviewer. For now I'll put the article on hold for a week for the prose issues to be addressed. Thanks again for all your work on this! I'm very glad to see it approaching GA status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Khazar2 for picking up Treblinka from the lineup. I'm looking forward to working with you especially, considering your GAN experience. I will be addressing your comments point by point shortly. Poeticbent talk 15:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Collapsing detailed discussion to make page more accessible; almost all recommendations have been addressed

Hello there. I'm AmericanLemming, and I'll undertake a copy-edit of this article. As I go along, feel free to revert or change anything if you don't like it. Here I go! AmericanLemming (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) That's terrific. Thanks, AmericanLemming. I will wait to let you finish editing in peace, Poeticbent talk 19:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid I only got through the first paragraph of Treblinka II; I'll have to do the rest later, as I have a class to go to. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Seeing as the article appears to use British spelling like "labour" and "realising", I'm going to change all the dates to DMY for consistency. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Comments from the copy-editor At this point I've gotten through Killing process, leaving somewhere between half and two-thirds of the article to go. But before I go on, I have some comments I'd like to make. I don't make to upstage Khazar as the reviewer, but having read the first third of the article rather carefully I though I might as well put in my two cents. These are merely suggestions to improve the article, not requirements for attaining GA status. Some of it is just wording that I don't like but don't know how to improve. In that regard, it is as much a checklist for me as it is for the nominator. I will resume my copy-edit 18-24 hours from this timestamp, I think. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Your work and suggestions are hugely appreciated--thanks for taking the time for this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Resolved comments from AmericanLemming Expanding the lead The lead in general should be somewhat longer, I think. Not twice its present size, but a little bigger. A few suggestions for things you could add: mention that more people died at Treblinka that at any other single camp besides Auschwitz (I may be incorrect, but that's the impression I get) mention why/how the Sonderkommando revolt led to the closing of the camp add a last and fourth paragraph explaining the discovery of the camp in 1944/1945, the war crimes trials associated with it, and the memorial Lead The first sentence as a whole reads awkwardly, with the phrase "was an extermination camp, created by Nazi Germany" being particularly in need of rewording. "of Romani people—men, women, and children—were murdered there" the "men, women, and children" part interrupts the flow of the sentence. Perhaps you could put it at the very end? Background "crawler excavator (shown in photographs)" Which photographs? The ones in the article? I don't see any photos of crawler excavators in the article... "Treblinka I prisoners worked 14-hour shifts in either the nearby gravel pit or irrigation area" Irrigation area? Were they farming? Treblinka II I believe the first paragraph talks about Treblinka II in general and the first section, the second paragraph about the second section, and the third paragraph about the third section. I suggest either splitting the first paragraph into two or making it clear when you're talking about Treblinka II in general and the when you're talking about the first section in particular. "as drawn by Franz Stangl himself while in custody" Who's Franz Stangl? (I know readers can click on the link, but a little background might be nice.) "The third and the most critical section of Treblinka II was its upper camp" "Most critical" Do you mean most important/deadliest/notorious/infamous? "Critical" doesn't seem to be quite the right word. "deportations from Warsaw in two pendulum trains continued on a daily basis ranging from about 4,000 to 7,000 victims per transport" Were there two trains that each made one trip per day, or did the two trains make multiple trips per day? Killing process "Prisoners arriving from abroad (Theresienstadt, Thrace, Pirot) were treated differently from the Polish Jews" How were they treated differently?' "with the men being treated particularly brutally" I left out the "after undressing" part because it made the sentencer really clunky, and I'm not sure how to put it back in. "later trains had to wait on layover tracks at Treblinka, Małkinia, and Wólka Okrąglik." Trains that were later in the day? Trains that came along later (like 1943) when the camp was busier? "Sometimes victims were not dead and began to revive in the fresh air, especially pregnant women" Any reason why pregnant women survived the gassing more than other? "The Germans became fully aware of the dangers associated with the mass burial of corpses" These aren't dangers in the traditional sense. Thus, would "diplomatic dangers" or "reputation dangers" work better? I don't like either of those replacements, but "dangers" doesn't seem to quite fit either. "(wrote Wiernik)" It might be a good idea to give some background on him, since he seems pretty important to the whole story. Organization of the camp "80–120 Wachmänner guards from the east who had been trained at Trawniki" I think you mean only the Wachmänner guards were trained at Trawniki? This may or may not be ambiguous as it currently stands. "were also some Russians, Tatars, Moldovans, Latvians, and Central Asians who had served in the Red Army." Had all of these groups served in the Red Army, or only the ones from Central Asia? "They were recruited by Karl Streibel" Were they recruited, in that they were given a choice? Or were they forced to come to Treblinka to work as guards? "from the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps after the outbreak of war with the USSR" I know they were obviously prisoner-of-war camps holding Soviet soldiers who had been captured by the Germans, but I think the current wording may confuse readers, if only temporarily. "(see more names)" This seems at little awkward. Perhaps "see list of guards from Trawniki" or something similar? "The work crews – usually unable to eat or sleep" Were they unable to eat or sleep because they didn't want to/were too stressed out, or was it that the guards didn't give them anything to eat and wouldn't let them sleep? The last three sentences of the fourth paragraph don't seem to really have anything to do with the rest of the section. If there is a connection, I think it would help to make it more explicit. Treblinka prisoner uprising "After a long period of preparation posing an immediate threat to life" Do you mean that the preparation posed an immediate threat to life or that working at the camp posed at immediate threat to life, or both? "The combat unit was organized first" Do you mean that the combat unit was organized first (that is, there was a noncombat unit that was organized later) or that Julian Chorążycki was the first leader of the combat unit? "improperly, Chorazyski; a noble man, essential to taking action wrote Rajzman" Um, this phrase leaves me really confused. Who's Raizman, and why is Chorazyski "a noble man, essential to taking action"? I know he started the combat unit and all, but it's still a little unclear. Perhaps you could change it to "Chorazyski was described by fellow plotter/inmate Raizman as 'a noble man, essential to taking action'" "His Organizing Committee" Any particular reason why the name is capitalized? "On 2 August 1943 (Monday, a day of rest from gassing)" Did they rest from gassing every Monday, or was it just that one Monday they decided to take off? Did it have something to do with the guards who were off swimming in the Bug River? "Only 150–200 Jews succeeded in crossing over to the other side" The other side of the fence or the other side of the river? If it's the fence, then I think "in crossing the fence" would be clearer. "albeit at a reduced speed with only ten boxcars "processed" at one time until the end of the month" do you mean "at once", as opposed to the twenty at once mentioned earlier in the article? "One day later, a large group of Jewish workers who had been forced to dismantle the camp structures were transported" They didn't dismantle the entire camp in a day, did they? After the war "based on their observation of Holocaust trains passing through" Passing through where? Treblinka? "Randomly terrorized Jews" Where did these randomly terrorized Jews come from, and why were they randomly terrorized? "761 buildings burned to the ground, families killed" As long as we're mentioning the number of building destroyed, wouldn't it also make sense to mention the number of families killed? "What remained, wrote Grossman" Who's Grossman? "In 1968, after the end of Stalinist terror in Poland" I understand that you as a Pole have pretty strong feelings about what happened between 1948 to 1956, but it might be best to stick with "after the end of Stalinism in Poland". "A towering monument" How tall was it? "their almost unimaginable suffering contain unsupported information and only alleged facts" aren't unsupported information and alleged facts basically the same thing? "Franciszek Ząbecki was one of the few non-German witnesses to see every transport that came into the camp" and "He witnessed most transports thereafter" These two statements seem to contradict each other. " even though the actual numbers likely tallied up earlier were probably outdated, as shown through the AK communiqués" What exactly does "even though the actual numbers likely tallied up earlier were probably outdated" mean? "On the basis of the telegram and additional German hard-evidence for 1943 listing 67,308 persons "processed"," Awkward, unclear, and confusing. "Since 2010, the site is being examined with non-invasive archeological technology." Is it still being examined with non-invasive archeological technology as we speak? Treblinka trials, individuals responsible, and footnotes "this trial was preceded by the 1951 trial of Josef Hirtreiter in Frankfurt am Main." Who's Josef Hirtreiter? Someone connected with Treblinka? "Germans leaving Treblinka to have a vacation at home used to request a locomotive from Klinzman and Emmerich at the Treblinka station just to transport "gifts" to Małkinia for a connecting train, so they could drive out of the camp empty-handed." I find this whole sentence rather confusing. They're weren't requesting a personal train, were they? And how did getting this train help them anyway? First third As for the first third of the body text, here are more comments: "Additionally, trees were cut and the perimeter adjusted to fit the killing process" How was the perimeter adjusted to fit the killing process? I know you talk about it later, but this sentence leaves the uniformed reader (like me) rather confused for a while. "A widely feared overseer was Untersturmführer Franz Schwarz" I know it originally said "another widely feared overseer", implying that Eupen was a feared overseer. I don't opposed the original wording so long as you explain why Eupen was a feared overseer. "This killing process differed significantly from the method used at Auschwitz and Majdanek, where the poisonous gas Zyklon B was utilized." Any reason why Treblinka used carbon monoxide and not Zyklon B? "associated with the mass burial of corpses only in 1943, when the Polish victims of the Soviet Katyn massacre" When in 1943 was the Katyn massacre unearthed? "Therefore, the orders to exhume corpses already buried at Treblinka and burn them instead came directly from the Nazi leadership." The mid-level Nazi leadership? The high-level Nazi leadership? Who exactly gave the orders? Well, that's all for now. I don't mean to give you a hard time; I'm just trying to help you improve the article, which is already pretty good. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Organization of the camp I've just finished going through "Organization of the camp", so I'll give my comments on that section now before I forget what they are. "sorted the belongings of victims who had been already "processed"" Obviously "processed" means "killed", but it might be unclear to some readers. " who separated quality items" Do you mean that they separated the high quality items from the low quality items? "Their big triangles made it impossible for new arrivals to blend in" The big triangles of the Desinfektionskommandos? Also, how would have new arrivals been able to blend in anyway, even without the big triangles? "The Camp 1 Wohnlager residential compound contained barracks for 700 Sonderkommandos, bringing their grand total to roughly one thousand at any given time" This sentence confuses me. Are you trying to say that the barracks was severely overcrowded? "There was a bruise rule in effect" Put in place by the camp leadership, I suppose? Was it a formal rule or just a habitual practice of the guards? "he would be called "clepsydra" (water clock) in the camp language" Why "water clock"? And what was the "camp language"? German? Yiddish? Hebrew? And who would call him "water clock"? The guards or the other prisoners? Whew. That's a lot of comments for four paragraphs. I've gone from feeling like a copy-editor to a GA reviewer to a FA reviewer. It's entirely possible I'm being too picky. Anyway, make sure to take these as suggestions, since I really don't know how much is too much, I'm afraid. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC) At first glance, I agree with most of AL's points above. Since you two are getting work done quickly and excellently here, I'm going to stay out of the way for a bit. Anything you two disagree on, feel free to set aside and we can resolve it later if it's a GA-level issue. Thanks again both of you for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I've now finished going through the entire article. Almost 200 edits later, I think the prose is much better than it was before. Anyway, I'm now going to go through everything after "Organization of the camp" again to point out places where I thought the prose could be improved but I didn't know how. And that means more comments, I'm afraid. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC) I'm trully impressed. Thanks, AmericanLemming. I will be addressing your comments one by one as we go. Poeticbent talk 04:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 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? "Chorążycki committed suicide on April 19 when faced with imminent capture" So if the Germans figured out that there was a plot, why didn't they kill everyone else who they thought was involved, too? "He launched the uprising on a hot summer day when a group of Germans and some forty Ukrainians drove off to the Bug River for a swim.[79] He was remembered differently by survivors as either Dr. Lecher [sic],[77] or Dr. Leichert.[81] Lajcher was killed in the revolt." I suggest moving the first and the third sentences into the next paragraph; I think they fit better there. "the door to the arsenal near the train tracks was silently unlocked" Do we know who unlocked the door? If we don't, I think it's worth mentioning that. "They splashed gasoline in some buildings" Did they splash gasoline in or on the buildings? I think you want "on" here. Alright, that's everything for this section. I've put a lot of work into tidying it up, seeing as it probably had the worst prose in the entire article before I started the copy-edit. With that in mind, I would appreciate it if you, Khazar2, could take a careful look at it to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thanks! AmericanLemming (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Operational command "It was evident that large-scale killings were happening nearby, which caused panic among the villagers." Did they think they were going to be killed too? "Christian Wirth was assigned to move into Treblinka" Did he then stay there for an extended period of time? "Stangl had a reputation as a competent administrator with a good understanding of the project's objectives" I suppose the project's objectives were to kill all the Jews? "Stangl wanted his camp to look attractive, so he ordered the paths paved and flowers planted along the sides of Seidel Street, near camp headquarters and SS living quarters" Was Seidel Street near camp headquarters and SS living quarters, or were they three separate places where paths were paved and flowers were planted? "Stangl accepted the extermination of the Jews as a fact" A fact as in it was happening or that it had to happen? "(actually, prisoner Walter Hirsch wrote them for him)." I assume he did so under no little duress? That is, he was forced to? AmericanLemming (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC) After the war "The last rail transport of Jews destined for death" I understand where this is coming from, but "destined for death" seems a little dramatic for a Wikipedia article. I can't think of any suitable replacements off the top of my head, but there's got to be some. "The new Soviet-installed government failed in its duty to preserve evidence of the crime" I think you mean moral duty, not legal duty, right? It might be more NPOV if you just take the "failed in its duty" part out. Then again, I haven't been around Wikipedia that long, so maybe not. "The scene has not been legally protected" Even to this very day? Otherwise, "the scene was not legally protected until..." would be more appropriate. "No funds were allocated for it by the Stalinist officials" Did they not allocate any funds to the design competition or the memorial? Neither? "No funds were allocated for it by the Stalinist officials. The committee disbanded in 1948. Many survivors left the country. In 1949 the town of Sokołów Podlaski took it upon itself to protect the camp with the new fence and a proper gate. A work crew was sent in to beautify the grounds with no archeological insight." I think all of these short, choppy sentences could be combined so that they're more coherent. "The exhibition house opened in 2006 following the collapse of the Soviet empire" Two things: 1. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so why did the exhibition house open so much later? 2. "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, individuals responsible, and footnotes " Twenty years after the war ended, eleven former SS camp personnel were brought to trial by West Germany, including commandant Kurt Franz." Any reason it took them so long to have the trial? "Gustav Munzberger from Gas Chambers received 12 years, Franz Suchomel (Gold and Money) 7 years, Otto Stadie (Operation) 6 years, Erwin Lambert (Gas Chambers) 4 years, Albert Rum (Totenlager) 3 years. Otto Horn (Corpse Detail) was acquitted and set free" I understand that German capitalizes all nouns (I'm a German major, for crying out loud. I should know that.) However, generally nouns are not capitalized in English. Any reason why they're capitalized here? Source: S.J., H.E.A.R.T 2007. — Nice to learn something about you along the way. Poeticbent talk 22:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) "but Austria did not issue a warrant for Stangl's arrest until 1961." Any reason why it took them so long? Footnotes: Make sure that all access dates are all DMY (4 July 2013) and not MDY (July 4, 2013)! I think some of them are and some of them aren't. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Final thoughts from copy-editor I've now copy-edited and commented on the prose of the entire article; I've made 239 edits myself and listed 76 comments for the nominator to address. A few final thoughts: 1. Sorry for making so many small edits. I like saving my work often, and inflating my edit count is one way I justify spending this much time on Wikipedia (It's sad but true). 2. Some if not many or most of these comments are geared more toward A-class or FAC review. I'm picky, so that's why I don't make the best GA reviewer. 3. Having spent a considerable amount of time on my first run-through, I don't intend to make a second, mainly because I don't have time. I will continue to watch the article and this page, though. 4. The prose may not be GA quality quite yet (the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct), but it's definitely pretty close. 5. The writing may have been of pretty poor quality when I started, but I stuck with it because it's clear that this is an important topic that somebody's put a lot of work into. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC) General comments from the nominator The opening line at the Wikipedia:Good article nominations informs us that: "Good articles are articles that have been evaluated ... against a minimum standard of quality. This standard is less than featured articles." Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Good article criteria specifies six categories (which have long been met) including: 1). spelling, grammar, compliance with manual of style (lead sections, layout); 2). references, in-line citations, no original research; 3). focused on the topic; 4). neutral; 5). undisputed; and 6). illustrated. "Reviewers are encouraged to differentiate clearly between those improvements that are necessary for the article to meet the criteria, and suggestions to improve the article beyond the actual criteria" (quote from WP:WGN). In my opinion based on years of wiki experience, with all of the suggestions from above, this article can easily qualify for Wikipedia:Featured article review (a good idea), but the order needs to be followed: Good article first ... per Wikipedia:Article development stages. For example, further expansion of the lead, further research into why the poisonous gas Zyklon B was not utilized, follow up after the Soviet Katyn massacre, individual responsibility, and so on... I'd say about 25% of the excellent comments from AmericanLemming go beyond WP:RGA. This article was created by neither of us. Dozens of other Wikipedians contributed, with varied levels of experience. That's why it may read awkwardly, even if fully compliant with the GAN requirements. – What cannot be a good article? A Featured article ... for once (quote from WP:GA?). Now, back to the old grindstone, Poeticbent talk 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Yep, that's fair; AmericanLemming did a great job going through this with a fine-tooth comb, but as she/he said, it's probably finer than necessary for GA. Please don't feel like you need to address or respond to every one of the points above for this review (though I hope you will take a look at them for easy or major fixes). Let me know when you've made any changes you want to make in response to her/his suggestions; then I can take another look myself against the GA criteria. And thanks for your patience with what I know has already been a detailed review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC) I second that motion. Fix what you want/have time to fix, and then leave the rest for if and when you take this to FA status. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Please give me a couple of days to wrap it up in here, before we go any further. It's been a pleasure working with you guys. Poeticbent talk 22:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Sounds good-- take your time! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Further expansion of the lead is ready. Dear AmericanLemming, please let me know when I can start putting it in without editing conflict? — I am going to wait for a go ahead, because the changes involve the whole article. Poeticbent talk 19:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but it looks as though you've already expanded the lead. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Yep, but a few hours after his comment above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) The lead is in. It's all yours, thanks for the patience. Poeticbent talk 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC) As far as I can tell, all comments from above have been taken into consideration, including those not yet marked by AmericanLemming as resolved. All real issues were fixed. Some of the suggestions were omitted because they exceed the GAN requirements. – If any reader wants to learn more, they can follow the sources. For example, the answer to why Kurt Küttner didn't discover the plot when he ambushed Chorążycki, is because Chorążycki committed suicide specifically in order for Küttner not to extract this information from him through torture... Needless to say, this article is not a book on Treblinka. We need to prioritize. Some of the details go beyond wp:due weight in my view, but since earlier Wikipedians put it in, I didn't feel like removing it, i.e. the separate Treblinka song section. Anyhow, please take a look at it again, Khazar2. Take it from here. Poeticbent talk 22:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Terrific! Thanks to you both again for all the work. I'll start from the top at some point in the next day or two and see if I have any concerns left. I'm very excited about how this is coming along. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support As the copy-editor and/or deputy reviewer and/or whomever else you consider me to be, I support promotion of this article on the basis of its prose and comprehensiveness. 269 edits of my own to the article later and with 46 of my 77 comments addressed, I think the prose is good enough for GA status. The rest can wait for FAC, if and when someone chooses to pursue that route. This is just a GAN, after all. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great! Thanks again for your work here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Second pass

Okay, I'll give the article another go-over today. More shortly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All right, this is definitely making progress, but there are still some areas that need work. The biggest running confusion in the article is the way the phrase "totenlager" is used to describe a lot of different things; this should be clearly defined on its first use, and then used consistently after that point. A few points also need additional clarity or citation. I've made a list of action points below--let me know your thoughts! This covers all but the last two sections. Thanks again for your tireless work on this one--we're getting close to the end, I promise! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and Treblinka II (Totenlager)." -- this phrasing leaving it ambiguous if the camp was named Totenlager or if it was a Totenlager. (I don't speak much German, but I assume this means "death camp")

I removed the parentheses and changed the phrase to German Vernichtungslager (meaning: death camp). It was named as such in the German language, I figure; see: Extermination camp#Definitions. Poeticbent talk

• "a forced labour Arbeitslager" -- this seems redundant--isn't an Arbeitslager always a forced labour camp? Later you write "a forced labor camp (Arbeitslager) ", which seems like a much better way to do it.

I removed the "forced labour" phrase from that part of the sentence; tautology. Poeticbent talk

• "Aktion Reinhard" and "Operation Reinhard" are the same, right? I'm not clear why the article switches back and forth between the terms. This should be made consistent.

Changed to Operation Reinhard. Poeticbent talk

• (shown in recovered photographs). -- is the source for this sentence original research into photographs? This sentence may need to be cut.

Done. It's unnecessary like you said. Poeticbent talk

• Totenlager should be defined or linked for non-German-speakers.

The actual term Totenlager is a red link (surprise!), because in Wiki Dictionary it seems to mean more than just that. Removed altogether. Poeticbent talk

• "mega quarry" -- a bit unusual, and "mega" can't be a standalone word -- could we just say "large quarry"? Or "quarry"?

Apparently, the term mega quarry in used in the industry. You can google that. Poeticbent talk

• "the isolated Totenlager death camp" -- isn't this redundant? Or does Totenlager mean something different than death camp? I'm quite confused as how this term is used in the article.

I think the term Totenlager might be overused in this article. See above. Sentence reworded. Poeticbent talk

• "The third and the most important section of Treblinka II was its upper camp – the isolated Totenlager death camp –" --another point of confusion here. In the lead, you identify all of Treblinka II as a "Totenlager". Here you say that one part of Treblinka II was a Totenlager. Which is correct?

As I understand it, the whole of Treblinka II was a Totenlager. See above. Poeticbent talk

• "a train-station clock with face painted on permanently." -- I'm not quite sure what this means--is it a fake clock with fake hands painted on it?

Changed to: "fake train-station clock with hands painted on it." Poeticbent talk

• "All new arrivals were sent immediately to the gas chambers." -- In the lead, you stated that a small number were kept alive to work as Sonderkommando--or were the Sonderkommando not being used yet?

They were used from day one. Added Kommando Blau to that sentence. Poeticbent talk

• The article alternates between "Armia Krajowa" and "Home Army" -- it would be better to pick one term and stick to it to avoid confusion (though you might give both terms initially)

Armia Krajowa is the title of our Wikipedia article, so I'm using that when not linked. Poeticbent talk 17:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Within the compounds of the Treblinka Totenlager extermination camp" -- redundant?

Changed to "Within Treblinka II", simpler and less repetitious. Poeticbent talk

• "Conspicuously missing from it are the big swaths of land around cremation pits with burial trenches dug by the crawler excavator (see aerial photo)" -- this editorial comment should probably be either sourced or deleted

I find this important enough to be noted per our Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Some criteria for a good caption, because it is too easy to miss, on such a little photo. You can delete it if you want. Poeticbent talk 17:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Two sources are marked page needed--these pages need to be added

I question the reliability of that second source which is a school project. I think it can simply be removed. Poeticbent talk

• "Their big triangles made it impossible for new arrivals to blend in." -- who is "their" here? The Desinfektionskommando, all of these units, or the new arrivals? I'm not clear why this sentence occurs in the middle of the assembly line of units here

Rearranged sentences. Added clarification. Poeticbent talk

• "New labourers (only the strongest men) were selected from new arrivals daily to obtain the necessary replacements." -- again, this appears to contradict the earlier statement that all arrivals were killed immediately

The earlier statement has been reworded, see above. Poeticbent talk 17:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "bringing their grand total to roughly one thousand at any given time" -- if there were 700 bunks for Sonderkommando, why conclude that there were 1000 of them total? Is this counting the Totenjuden as Sonderkommando? This should be clarified--are the terms interchangeable, are the Totenjuden a subgroup?

There were 300 Sonderkommando members called Totenjuden sleeping in Camp 3 by the cremation pyres, plus 700 Jews from all other Sonderkommandos sleeping in Camp 1 residential compound, which gives 1,000 in total. I don't know how to say it better. Please make a suggestion, Poeticbent talk

• "Lajcher was killed in the revolt." -- easy to believe, but can a source be given for this?

Citation anchor same as above but missing here. Fixed already. Poeticbent talk

• I've reordered the Uprising section a bit for clarity and to cut some trivial material (for example, the fact the the AP ran a single story on Wallenberg in 2010 is not significant in the general scale of this article). Let me know if you have any objections.

I totally agree with you. Factoid added by someone else, not significant enough. Poeticbent talk

• I'd suggest reversing the order of the sections "Treblinka prisoner uprising" and "Operational command"; almost all of the events described in the second come before the events described in the first.

I admit, I moved these sections around. I did it, because both "Organization of the camp" and the "Treblinka prisoner uprising" (now side by side) speak about the Jews forced to work at the camp. Meanwhile, the section "Operational command" speaks only about the commandants, thus giving them voice to also misrepresent the facts. I already spoke about that in talk which is now archived. Here is what I said: "The actual description of the camp must come from a reputable historian because that's what WP:RS means. A rant from (any) Holocaust perpetrator (recorded during his trial for war crimes), is not reliable..." It may be useful, but in my view, it should not be used as an inherent part of the camp's physical description. – I would rather delete all together the stupefying quotes originating from the mass murderers themselves per our wp:red flag policy guideline, because they are the most suspicious first party accounts carying a hidden agenda; however, I already encounter opposition to that.Poeticbent talk

• " The man most responsible for day-to-day interactions with the prisoners was commandant Kurt Franz." -- is there a source for this?

Good catch, thanks. Paragraph reworded with relevant citation.Poeticbent talk

• "Survivor Samuel Willenberg remembered the song beginning: "With firm steps we march.... " -- why is this sourced to "Testimony of SS-Unterscharführer (Corporal) Franz Suchomel, who worked at Treblinka. Source: Claude Lanzmann, Shoah: An Oral History of the Holocaust. Para-documentary film, France (1985)." -- did Suchomel testify that Willenberg remembered the song this way?

Badly formatted reference was the culprit. Fixed that. In the film Shoa, both Willenberg and Suchomel were interviewed, independently of each other of course. Poeticbent talk

• A class handout, like this one, isn't really a reliable source. It would be better to source the quotation directly to the film. (fn 102)

I think there's a YouTube video out there with Suchomel's singing it. Is that what you mean? Poeticbent talk

No, just adding a citation to the movie without an external link would be fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The last rail transport of Jews destined for death " -- were there later transports of Jews that weren't killed? Or is the "destined for death" here just for added drama?

Changed to "rail transport of Jews for gassing" (less dramatic, I presume). Poeticbent talk

• "Randomly terrorized Jews" -- what does it mean that these Jews were randomly terrorized? Were they terrorized in the general sense that all the prisoners were randomly terrorized, or is there something unusual about the way they were treated?

I think I already mentioned that somewhere. The so-called killing operations ended by then, so what remained was the usual terror experienced by slave-labor. Please make a suggestion. Poeticbent talk 05:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• " the Black Road" -- I'm assuming "the Black Road" is the name of the road the previous sentence describes? This name could be introduced more clearly.

Added clarification, the road became known by that name. Poeticbent talk

• "The new Soviet-installed government failed in its duty to preserve evidence of the crime" -- seems very POV to state that it was this government's "duty" to preserve the site. Ok to just say "failed to preserve evidence of the crime"?

Fixed. Thanks, Poeticbent talk

• "The scene has not been legally protected." -- really? I thought you said that it was a national monument.

Fixed... "not legally protected" at the "conclussion" of World War II. Poeticbent talk

• " a place of martyrology" -- this is a very unusual phrase in English, and I'm not sure what it means. Googling it, it only appears about fifteen times in the whole Internet. Can you clarify it? (Same for "national monument of martyrology")

This is (more less) a working translation of a foreign phrase: "miejsce martyrologii" with about 4,600 results in Google. Popular in Poland, where the Holocaust took place. Poeticbent talk

• "were purchased from 192 farmers" -- who made this purchase? (the national govt? The Warsaw provincial council?)

I'm not sure. Source does not specify, but Council used to be a govt agency under the communist system, one way or another. Poeticbent talk

• I'm deleting some empty phrases as I go like "their almost unimaginable suffering". The factual detail of the article already makes the scale of that suffering clear--bodies of mothers clutching children, pregnant women exploding in the fire, etc. There's no need to repeat it again abstractly (and in fact, this lessens the impact of the article rather than enhancing it).

Thanks, Poeticbent talk

• "Lazarett" -- earlier in the article this was spelled with one "t", here two--which is correct?

Spelling came from source. Removed extra "t". Poeticbent talk

• A page number is needed for the reference "Sereny, Gitta Into That Darkness: from Mercy Killing to Mass Murder, a study of Franz Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka, 1974"

Added {{sfn|Sereny|2013|p=354}} Poeticbent talk

• Lorenz Hackenholt, SS-Hauptscharführer (First Sergeant) -- appears to need citation
• "chief of the Totenlager (extermination area)" -- yet another definition for Totenlager, so another spot to clarify

Again, "Totenlager" removed. Poeticbent talk

• I think listing every known SS man who worked at the camp may be excessive detail. What would you think of removing the red-linked names from this list?
• Aren't Ivan the Terrible and Ivan Ivanovich Marchenko the same person? Why do you list him twice here? It also seems incredibly POV to link the second instance of his name to John Demjanjuk. If I understand right, Demjanjuk was originally accused of being Marchenko but then was convicted of being a different guard at Sobibor, correct? I'm removing this entry for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is just about ready to pass. I'd still arguing for cutting some of the SS names at the bottom but it's not enough to stop this from becoming a GA. Thanks for your patience and thoroughness in working through my comments above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Prose is good; spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparison to the Britannica article and Holocaust Encyclopedia demonstrates that main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some of the more minor SS figures listed toward the end (such as the name of a guard killed by an inmate) seem like unnecessary detail, but on the whole, this is within GA bounds.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA--very good work on a huge topic!