Talk:Dachau (US Army report)/GA1

GA Review
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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)