Talk:Dachau (US Army report)

[Untitled]

This article is "in progress" and was translated (which still has to be optimized) from the respective German article, which was written by the person posting this (Pittigrilli) and German WP author Schreiben. It shall be transferred to the article space of the en-WP once all the nasty red things present now are 'terminated'. If the template "In progress" chosen should not be suitable, please post here what to use instead for the transition phase to the article space. Pittigrilli (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The above is now defunct as the article was transferred to the normal article space with friendly and quick help from en-user Buidhe. Thanks again, Pittigrilli (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Does 'Bibliography' below 'References' make sense?

With the structure of the references introduced by Buidhe, I think that the order with references first now makes the article less readable, esp. for 'non-netizens' and the elderly. I would thus opt for putting the references at the very end, with Bibl. and external links first. Pittigrilli (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving the references before the bibliography, but the external links should be after both according to MOS:LAYOUT guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

objection to "emphasis unusual for a military report"

Yeeno added a tag named 'improper synthesis?' to the above passage. I try to clarify this: Yes, this statement is neither from the report itself nor taken from any of the literature. It is also in the German version and was formulated by myself. Of course, this is an assessment which goes into the direction of "original research", but imho it is allowable in this case - when one has personally read some military reports or intelligence reports, these are always (no exceptions) written in the absence of any sentiment - military men write about 10,000 dead soldiers or civilians just like a researcher writes about the Holocaust or severe Agent-Orange-caused birth defects. It is their job to be as professional and neutral as possible in terms of life and death. A bit like we work in the Wikipedia, as well... Hence: I think the conclusion is ok. On the other hand, I would also have no problem deleting the statement "unusual for a military report", if others should disagree with my conclusion. Pittigrilli (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pittigrilli It would definitely be worth noting, if we could get a cite for it. Are you familiar with any authors or sources that might've noted his usual tone? Yeeno (talk) 🍁 20:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Latest edit in 'Summary'

Hi Yeeno, I like your overhaul, thank you. I noticed that you made a change to the content introducing "stir" etc., which I deem very good. The German article, which was initially identical word by word to this translated version (until the changes here), just got a "Lesenswert" attribute (such as "Good read", "Recommended Read") via an election process by the German Wikipedia community. Is your review a milestone on the path to getting sth. like this here, as well? What else would be needed? I know there are regulations and a help site, but I find these rather confusing due to the great number of options. In the German WP, there are only the attributes "Recommended Read" (Lesenswert, see above) and "Excellent article", which means something like "High-End" or "not further improvable". In the en-WP, I think I have identified A, B, and C-class good articles and at least two more. I would thus welcome any advice... Pittigrilli (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pittigrilli: The content assessments (Start, C, B) can be done by individual users as part of Wikiprojects. In this case it's WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history and WikiProject United States. It looks like the ""Lesenswert" attribute is analogous to Good Article Status (GA) (meaning it meets some basic standards), while the "Excellent article" would be the Featured Article, meaning, like you said, the article is the best it can be and "not further improvable". Copyediting from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is not a necessary step in any of these, though if you nominate it for GA status the reviewer will probably tell you to do some copyediting anyways. There's also WP:Peer Review, where you can invite others to provide suggestions on improving an article, usually in preparation for a GA or a FA nomination (It's usually really backlogged). Though for this article you can probably nominate it for GA after I'm through with copyediting, and whoever reviews it can probably give you some more suggestions on what to improve. Cheers, Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the elaborate and very helpful answer. I wrote the German article together with another German author for an internal Wikipedia writing contest. It has undergone a factual review during that phase, which was under time pressure, and landed in the first one third of the competing articles. A second review was during the nomination for "Lesenswert", which review can be seen in its entirety on the talk page of the German version of the article, and where we undertook some adaptions and improvements. The only remaining "blank spot" is that there is hardly any no information available if the Dachau report of the 7th Army was used in ANY war crimes trials. This was objected to in the German review, but we found none. I am still in contact with a German history professor who might help with this issue. Given all this, I think that your assessment is correct and that I might nominate it for GA after your review. Thanks again, Pittigrilli (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dachau (US Army report)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pittigrilli: Sorry for the endless wait; please give me a sign that you are still up to working on this, and then I will start shortly. Thanks --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: No worries, I am glad it starts. Yes, I am fully willing and ready to start. Just to let you know about some important points - there is not much scientific/secondary literature about the report, and I can say we used almost all. This is why there are so many references to the report itself. Best, Pittigrilli (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Although it contains some errors, the report is considered one of the first studies on the Nazi concentration camps. – The "although" does not make sense to me. If it would contain a lot of errors, it would, of course, still be one of the first studies.
• the living conditions of the prisoners in Dachau concentration camp drastically deteriorated – just "Dachau" will suffice here I think and improves reading flow. Other instances in the text as well.
• the death train from Buchenwald – "death train", is that a term? Should have a link or explanation. I can't find the term in Death marches during the Holocaust.
• The Felix Sparks quotation with a German source? Can the source be cited directly? Also, it does not seem to be the exact original wording/punctuation, but this is important in a quote.
• There our troops found (...) cruelties – why omit part of the quote? It's only a few words?
• Composition and publication – why omit the number of photos in the report mentioned in the German article?
• Parts II to IV partly overlap thematically – maybe give a brief hind on what these parts cover beforehand?
• War Crimes Trial Program – there must be an article where this can be linked to.
• A large part of the report conists – consists?
• The sociology and social psychology of the system of prisoners and prisoner groups, their interactions with each other[20] the commanding SS, – can't follow this. What is the difference between prisoners and prisoner groups, for example? "Individual prisoners"?
• Communists, – lower case?
• criminal offences such as murder or robbery were known as "criminals" – unclear: did the Germans call them like this, or was it the liberators?
• or done to accomplish a particular goal set out by the SS for one or more criminal inmates. – can't follow here, what "goals"?
• Dachau also discusses the history of the Dachau concentration camp, – here, just "concentration camp" would improve reading I think.
• which existed as early as 1933 and is considered the first camp of its kind in Nazi Germany. – already mentioned, and slightly contradicting the first mention.
• The US investigators also conducted extensive interviews with residents of the town of Dachau, – What were the results? That did the report conclude?
• I'm generally not convinced that a "Summary" section is the way to go when everything is apparently repeated in the sections on the individual chapters? Maybe think about combining both, and have an additional paragraph in the lead that summarises it briefly.
• Make sure to have in-line references behind all paragraphs.
• We usually have the galleries at the end of the article; why at this particular position? As these are only four pictures, you could also add them as standard images to the article. You can also place images left and right, or combine two images into one plate using the "multiple image" template.
• Not sure why the "E. H. statement" is a section on its own and not combined with the section where the content is discussed?
• In addition to incidents that were true, certain details could also be untrue, – not precisely what the German article says (especially "could also be untrue", which should be "are untrue"?): Maybe "According to Langbein, some accounts were true while others are untrue"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• And to be clear, most of these points are suggestions and optional. Let me know if something is unclear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jens, thanks for your work. I agree to most instantly, and I think you made some suggestions which will improve the legibility for the average reader significantly. I have little time at the moment but think I will solve most in the next days, and write comments to the points where I have a different point of view. Pittigrilli (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Status query

Jens Lallensack, Pittigrilli, where does this review stand? It has been over five weeks since the review was posted, yet there don't seem to have been any edits made to address the issues raised. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pittigrilli: I have to close this now, as it takes too long. Once you have addressed the issues, please feel free to leave me a note when you re-nominate! Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)