Talk:Operation Harvest Festival/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Gog the Mild in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


I'll pick this up. The least I can do after your efforts at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

    • Thanks! Looks good to me. buidhe 19:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "Ordered by Heinrich Himmler, the aim of the operation was the extermination of Jews who had been pressed into forced labour in the camps which were located in and around Lublin in the General Governorate region of German-occupied Poland. " A long sentence, covering two different topics. Maybe split?
    • Rewrote
  • "File:Majdanek concentration camp map.jpg" The old question of what the original source was?
    • Probably this RS, added to image description.
  • "Puław" is duplinked.
    • Done
  • "2–3 metres (6 ft 7 in–9 ft 10 in) deep and 1.5–3 metres (4 ft 11 in–9 ft 10 in) wide" Optional: I think that your convertions are spuriously accurate and suggest rounding them to the nearest foot. Also "2 metres (6 ft 7 in) wide, and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) deep" later.
    • Fixed
  • "to plan the murder operation. The murder operation" The repeat is a little clunky, could you rephrase?
    • Done
  • "over the night" → either 'overnight' or 'during the night'.
    • done
  • Link nape.
    • Done
  • "The speakers were turned on" This comes a little out of the blue. Perhaps a brief explanation that such camps were commonly equipped with public address systems?
    • The installation of speakers is mentioned in the #Background section, but I have clarified here.
  • "Jewish prisoners who lived in the settlement outside the camp proper were returned to the camp." When?
    • Source doesn't say, unfortunately.
  • Link hiwi. Why the upper case H?
  • "At Poniatowa, there were 14,800 Jews at the camp before the massacre" "At Poniatowa ... at the camp ... " One of these seems redundant to me.
    • Fixed
  • "with assistants helping them reload their weapons and a bottle of schnapps" Could you look at the phraseology? It reads as if assistants helped reload the bottles.
    • Rephrased
  • "Prisoners at labor detachments in nearby Nałęczów and Kazimierz were also killed, after attempting to fight back." I think that this could do with more explanation. Eg, were they Jewish; which camp were they from; "fight back" - against what?
    • Presumably detachments of Poniatowa; added that information. Zegenhagen does not have any additional detail, and I cannot find more information in RS.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • "Cleanup and coverup of the operation was a priority of the Nazi leadership because of Soviet military victories on the Eastern Front." You and I know why A was due to B, but could you briefly explain, for a "typical" reader?
    • Added info.
  • What are "lattices"? (Yes, I know, but I suspect few readers will. (Possibly needs a stub writing for it?))
    • Changed to "grates" and reworded. It didn't occur to me that "lattices" would be too technical.

Another excellent article, as we have come to expect from you. Just a few niggles from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Clarified this
Currently the lead states "Thousands ... arrived ... for a conference with ... Jakob Sporrenberg". That's not what the article says and I don't think that it is what you mean. I think that you mean that a) thousands of SS and police personnel arrived in Lublin. Full stop. And that b) separately SS and Police Leader Jakob Sporrenberg met with their leaders. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I see what you mean now. Fixed. buidhe 20:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • If the source has no more information on it, then I have an issue with "Prisoners at labor detachments in nearby Nałęczów and Kazimierz were also killed, after attempting to fight back." It seems a bit random. As this is GAN I could just about wave it through - it's not as if its incorrect. But if you want to take this one further, and I hope that you do, then, IMO, you need to take this sentence out or find further information to demonstrate how it is relevant to the article.
  • That's a fair point. Removed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Promoting. Ping me when it goes to ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed