Talk:Leuchter report/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to review this; but I note that the article has received very little attention recently and from a quick review is far from GA standard.... I will add some initial thoughts and go from there:

Lead

 * Second sentence is confusing - it took a couple of goes for me to parse it.
 * ✅ Should be a lot clearer now. WilliamH (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Second paragraph has some long sentences and could do with rewriting
 * ✅ WilliamH (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead is very short and does not adequately cover the material.
 * ✅ It now does. WilliamH (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The discredited report is still widely distributed among Holocaust deniers.; is uncited, and does not appear to be within the body of the article, either.
 * ✅ WilliamH (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Investigation

 * Second trial? - lacks significant context, recommend a section containing background on the trial(s) of Zündel prior to this report
 * ✅ WilliamH (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Context for Faurisson and Irving would be useful (i.e. that they are Holocaust deniers who took part in these defences)
 * ✅ WilliamH (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Faurisson, Leuchter accepted the Holocaust, but after two days, he then stated that Leuchter was convinced that homicidal gassings never occurred; doesn't parse well, consider rewriting
 * ✅. WilliamH (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In agreement to serve as expert witness for the defense and having met Zündel in Toronto, Leuchter shortly left to spend a week in Poland; mistaken commas.
 * ✅. WilliamH (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Newly married for less than a month; grammar/English.
 * ✅ WilliamH (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Various problematic words (i.e. claimed); see WP:CLAIM
 * Please could you specify the exact instances you are referring to? Remember that Holocaust denial is a WP:FRINGE theory, and if someone "claims" something about something which they are patently wrong about, it's not unreasonable to imply the nature of their assertion in this way. WilliamH (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely it is a fringe theory. However the word "claimed" is important to avoid as it is us passing judgement not e.g. sources.
 * Leuchter claimed that the blueprints had been given to him by Auschwitz museum officials <- better simply to use "said" etc. (per WP:CLAIM)
 * Similarly, Leuchter claimed that he obtained most of his research material; again, us judging him in prose
 * Some of the other uses of "claim", "claimed" or "claims" are acceptable. But I'd encourage a copyedit to remove some of them. --Errant (chat!) 12:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Style notes

 * cquote should be quote, per guidelines at WP:MOSQUOTE
 * ✅. WilliamH (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That will do for now; as noted there are a very large number of issues to address with this article - in prose, style and organisation (and I haven't touched the sources yet) - so I am inclined to fail it, but will give you a short time to start work first :) --Errant (chat!) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take on board those comments for now. WilliamH (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Going through some more. --Errant (chat!) 12:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Prussian blue

 * The paragraph beginning This means that if it is claimed is very convoluted and hard to follow. If it means what I think it means then it could be summarised much more simply in a single sentence. In addition it is best to present that as Green's criticism directly. Maybe; "In other words, Green points out the Leuchter et al. failed to show that Prussian Blue would have been produced in the homicidal gas chambers in the first place - meaning it's absence is not in itself proof."
 * ✅ I remember not being satisfied with that when I first wrote it - excellent suggestion. WilliamH (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that this whole criticism is reliant on a single source (Green) I would present it more clearly as his criticism. Perhaps move up all of the claims into the first paragraph, then start off with " Dr. Richard Green criticised these findings in (description of report where he made the criticism)"... I think this is important because otherwise we present this in Wikipedia's voice (which I am not sure about).

Response

 * This section title confused me momentarily as I thought it followed from Prussian blue. Maybe consider finding another descriptive title?
 * ✅ WilliamH (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * the legal permission to obtain samples (which Leuchter and Rudolf did not),; drop the brackets, the article already discusses their illegal gatherings and it seems rather POV to put it here :)
 * ✅ WilliamH (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms in general

 * Going back to my comments r.e. Dr. Green - I think you need to attribute a lot more of the criticism directly to experts, rather than presenting it in Wikipedia's voice. I know this guy (and the report) are a hack, but having the article itself to appear to rebut the claims (rather than record experts rebutting the claims) is imortant. --Errant (chat!) 12:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Review stalled?
It's been eleven days since the most recent edit here, and ten days since a review-based edit was made to the article. What are the issues keeping this article from approval? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Real life circumstances changed at very short notice, giving me a lot less time for Wiki. I've got some time available now though, I'll be working on this over the weekend. WilliamH (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know GAR's usually happen "quick", but as reviewer I have no real issue in it taking a longer time. :) I've been checking in now and again to see if there are more updates; and when WilliamH gets through the last few points I suspect we'll be all done :) --Errant (chat!) 15:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And now? This review is 44 days old now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Up to a full two months now, and 30 days since WilliamH said it would be worked on. In the past 30 days, he's made over 200 edits on Wikipedia, but none on the article. I think a firm, short deadline for resolution of this nomination is in order, if it isn't simply ended forthwith. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have been on holiday or otherwise engaged. I have marked the review as failed for now - with no prejudice against a renomination should WilliamH find time to work on the article. --Errant (chat!) 09:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)