Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp
Peer Review | good article

I've spent the best part of the last month to expand the article on the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. With enormous help from several Wikipedians (Renata3, Mozzerati, Andreasegde, Mikkalai...) we've created an article that fits the scheme of what an encyclopaedia article should be: it answers the most important questions regarding the concentration camp complex and refers the readers to specific publications for more info. While it is still not ready and there is plenty of room for further improvement, I believe it is as close to Featured Article status as it gets. I also believe that the article has reached a stage of development, where we could either correct minor questions ad nauseam, or simply nominate it to FAC. Which article in Wikipedia is ready anyway? :)

When it comes to specific points listed at What is a featured article?:
 * 1) I believe the article is comprehensive, as it covers all notable aspects of the camp system's operation. It is also factually accurate, as I've done my best to source as many statements as possible and includes almost 100 different sources, some of them used more than once in the text. As the person to write most of it I can't tell whether it is truly neutral, but I believe so. And surely it is stable, as there's been little changes to it recently, except for some minor corrections (I expect that the current process would lead to more corrections though).
 * 2) The article complies with Wikipedia's standards, it has a decent lead section explaining the basic concept, a series of headings and sub-headings, and could even easily be divided onto separate sub-articles should this be the wish of the community
 * 3) It has lots of images, some of them unique and made specifically for Wikipedia. It also has a lot of red links that were filled with useful content, ranging from mere stubs to entire articles.

Now, my fellow Wikipedians, the ball is on your court :) .  // Halibutt 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A really amazing and deep article. On a random note, Image:Austria Mauthausen sub-camps.png is quite informative for a single map. The only thing I might maybe consider changing is splitting off the list of notable inmates, but I have a tendancy towards splitting off related lists. Staxringold 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  Weak Object.  This article is really deep and imporatnt, and so it pains me to object on such small grounds. The article in its current format has too many lists. These need to be converted into prose. Granted, this is not possible for all lists, but I feel that some lists here could be converted. Other than that, excellent work, and I hope to support soon. RyanG e rbil10 04:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Now this puzzles me as most of them were converted from prose for easier reading, following the suggestions during the peer review...  // Halibutt 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Staxringold removed some of the lists, and the lists which remain are acceptable and informative. Like I said in my objection, not all of the lists were bad. I now feel enough lists are gone, and remaining lists are good enough, that I will Support. RyanG e rbil10 15:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. I think the lists are appropriate to the article and do not think there are too many. This is an excellent article. 11:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Weak object . This article is more than worthy of FA, however RyanG is right, these lists break everything. While converting them back to prose is not the best solution, perhaps they can be converted tables or better yet, charts??? -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  13:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's be constructive then: how could one convert a simple list of companies or the list of methods of extermination into charts? By the length of their name? Tables might be good, but they would contain no additional information, so I doubt such a conversion would change much except for the article's length. Also, List specifically states that usage of tables for lists is discouraged.  // Halibutt 13:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.. I was not at all thinking about those Halibutt... rather about the list of number of inmates and survivors. I think a bar graph with descending sorting would be nice.
 * Oh yes, and there is a fact in one place which should be either sourced or the corresponding paragraph reworked. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)'
 * It has been heavily disputed at the talk page and is now removed from the article.  // Halibutt 20:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I split-off the List of notable inmates, removing one of the lists these two weak objections are over. I'm going to try and make the short list of survivors by ethnic background into a small table. Staxringold 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Update Tabled that list as well. Staxringold 14:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice! supporting now. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tabled one more list, just for good measure. Staxringold 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And I went a step further and converted the list of survivors of Gusen into a colourful chart. It looked weird as a table, and especially as such a wide one.  // Halibutt 22:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. A phrase like although most estimates place it between 122,766 and 320,000 is kinda weird, as 122,766 does not look like an estimate. Maybe change it to between 122,000 and 320,000 or something in that tune? -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply No reason to give up precise data if it comes from a source. Maybe, "most sources place it between"? Staxringold 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Something like that maybe. I'm not pushing this particular edit, it's just a bit weird to read as it is. :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with the lower number is that it's also an estimate. It is the body count of all the available death records, but it is also known that it's absolutely incomplete and based on German WWII data, which was commonly forged by the Germans themselves. But let's stick to Staxringold's proposal, it's less specific, but less eye-catching.  // Halibutt 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions. -Epolk 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Writing Captions WikiProject
 * Thanks  // Halibutt 11:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

*Object Image:Mauthausen-survivors.jpg is unsourced. Jkelly 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the excellent work by Halibutt. The level of referencing is very impressive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No it's not.  // Halibutt 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er... it was totally unsourced when I addded that objection. You then removed the unsourced template and added that it was from NARA.  I have since found what seems to be the actual source, so it doesn't matter, but note that image sources need at least some modicum of verifiability for their licensing.  Jkelly 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% sure it was taken from NARA, but as I already pointed out at your talk page their web page is currently down and I can't check it.  // Halibutt 01:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. very good article. For some reason, in the "Death toll" section the table and the text are not appearing properly, please attend. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. Outstanding work Halibutt et al! I'm impressed not only with the article itself, but that you found the courage and strength to write about this subject in such depth. In dealing with warfare, I write about humanity's inhumanity all the time, yet cannot bring myself to deal with such mega attrocities in any great detail without feeling a pain in my very soul. See Molobo, this is how war attrocities should be delt with here on Wikipedia. Again, great job my friends! NEVER FORGET.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)