Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuremberg trials/archive2

Nuremberg trials

 * Nominator(s): (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the withdrawn FAC last year, I expanded the article with more information on the origins of crimes against humanity, the American, French, and British prosecution efforts, and the defense section. I incorporated new sources and also looked at Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (1977), but I did not see anything worth adding from that book. I'd like to thank everyone who commented on the article, particularly Brigade Piron and Ealdgyth. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

NØ

 * Are the countries listed in the Origin section's first sentence in a specific order?
 * Yes, chronological and also that used in the cited source.
 * "On 1 November 1943, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States issued the Moscow Declaration to "give full warning [...] justice may be done" - It is a bit unclear who this quote came from. Is it written in the Declaration itself?
 * Yes, clarified.
 * "The British government, in light of the failure of trials after World War I, disinclined to endorse retroactive criminality, and unconvinced of the benefits of lengthy proceedings, still preferred the summary execution of Nazi leaders" - A long sentence, might benefit from a split
 * Rewrote
 * "Germany surrendered unconditionally" could be piped to German Instrument of Surrender instead of the redirect German surrender
 * Done
 * There seem to be over 700 usages of the word "the" in the article currently, so you could consider cutting some down. e.g. "Jackson's focus was on the aggressive war charge, which he described as the root of the crimes against humanity and of war crimes"
 * I rephrased this sentence but am having a hard time wrapping my head around overuse of the word "the" as I'd never heard of it as an issue before. I read over parts of the article but am unable to identify cases of "the" that are detrimental.
 * My review is very general due to my unfamiliarity with the subject matter. This is a very important topic of course and the article is engaging and well-researched in my opinion.--NØ 16:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The "the" comment is more of an observation than a criticism. Satisfied with the changes.--NØ 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ling

 * refs look pretty. I request a spot check. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 15:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lingzhi.Renascence: Do you have a reason for your request? -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 08:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If I had to hazard a guess it has something to do with my comments on this fac. That said, any editor including Lingzhi is welcome to do a spot check. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason is this. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Borsoka

 * Between 1939 and 1945, Nazi Germany waged war across Europe, invading Czechoslovakia,... Can the German occupation of Czechoslovakia be described as a war? Even if it can, it was not part of WWII (which is linked).
 * Rephrased. The point here is not that the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939 was part of WWII but it was an act of aggression according to the prosecution, although the tribunal also accepted the argument that the annexation of Austria was "a premeditated aggressive step" despite "the strong desire expressed in many quarters for the union of Austria and Germany"—which was deemed "immaterial". (Sayapin pp. 151–152). I am not sure that the annexation of Austria can be designated an invasion, so I did not list it.
 * My concern is that the link still suggests that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was part of WWII.
 * Removed from the list as the exact membership is not so important here.


 * ...the systematic murder of millions of Jews... I miss a reference to other groups.
 * The Jews are especially relevant considering the Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations which Hirsch mentions on the cited pages. I am not sure that others are relevant to mention specifically. From the Soviet perspective what mattered was not the individual groups of victims (especially given their "do not divide the dead" approach) but the war devastation and losing a lot of population. Western Allies encountered a mass of former KZ prisoners and they also did not have a good understanding of Nazi persecutions of specific groups of people.
 * I think the emphasis on Jews in the article's context should be explained.
 * Rewrite to show an evidenced link with the trial that does not exist in the case of other groups. Sellars writes, From the outset, the Allies had justified the prosecution of the leaders of the Axis powers on the grounds that the conflict had been unique in the annals of warfare because of its totality and barbarity. This argument rested primarily upon a singular event: the Holocaust. Although the judges at Nuremberg declared crimes against peace to be the ‘supreme international crime’,28 it was in fact the existence of the death camps that formed the moral core of the Allies’ case against the Nazi leaders.


 * ...1⁄7th... Why not one seventh?
 * Fixed
 * ...the German–Soviet pact... Link the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
 * Done
 * ... eight governments-in-exile... Perhaps a very short explanation between dashes?
 * Done
 * ...Axis crimes... So far the article only referred to Nazi Germany's aggression. Why is Axis not linked?
 * Corrected to "German" after checking the source
 * ...war crimes... The term is only linked in the lead.
 * Fixed
 * ...without Soviet participation... Why?
 * According to Hirsch, the reason they did not was because in exchange for recognizing the participation of British Dominions, the Soviets wanted each of the Soviet republics to be admitted individually, including countries such as Lithuania that the Western powers did not recognize as part of the Soviet Union. (p. 30). This seems too tangential to include
 * According to the corresponding article, China also signed the Moscow Declaration.
 * According to the official text, the Statement of Atrocities referred to here was joined by USSR, UK, US but not China (as Heller states).
 * ...Allies' intent... Allies is not linked yet. Did it declare of the Allies' intent or the intent of the signing powers?
 * "the aforesaid three Allied Powers, speaking in the interests of the 32 United Nations", so I've revised to signatories
 * ... those high-ranking Nazis who had committed crimes in several countries... Perhaps it indicates the limits of my English, but for me the sentence suggests that those Nazis who committed crimes in only one of the occupied countries were not intended to be persecuted.
 * Clarified
 * Nuremberg Charter is linked twice (once as London Conference)
 * I think these conference is separately notable from the final document that was approved, so I prefer to leave in the extra redirect.
 * Nineteen states ratified the charter... Could they be listed in a footnote?
 * I'm actually not convinced that this detail is relevant to include since Gemahlich does not actually list them and I cannot find references to ratification by other states in Hirsch, Priemel, Heller, Sellars, and other sources I checked. Their role in the trial seems to have been nil so I've removed it.
 * Murray Bernays, a War Department lawyer, proposed the conspiracy charge. For me, this statement comes out of the blue. What is conspiracy charge? Why is his proposal relevant?
 * Removed
 * Briefly introduce Hartley Shawcross, Auguste Champetier de Ribes and Robert Falco.
 * done
 * Consider linking indictment.
 * Done
 * ...the three official languages of the tribunal... Could they be listed?
 * I thought it was obvious, now spelled out
 * ...the German–Soviet pact... Link the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
 * Done
 * Institutional rivalries hampered the search. Some context? My concern is that this sentence is too general, it could be mentioned in any context where at least two institutions are to cooperate.
 * I could just remove this sentence.
 * Could the intitutions involved be mentioned or an example be added (to be more specific)? Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I will continue the review in one or two days. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the details would be UNDUE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I will continue the review tommorrow or on Monday. After re-reading the article I concluded that it meets all FA criteria, so I support its promotion. Thank you for this thoroughly researched and well written article. Borsoka (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Jackson is first mentioned in section "Legal basis" but he is introduced and linked in section "Judges and procedures".
 * Revised
 * ...even resorting to implausible lies Could you mention some examples?
 * Douglas says that this tactic was used when denying knowledge of the final solution, for example Kaltenbrunner claimed that he thought Sonderbehandlung referred to prisoners getting privileged conditions. He lied so much that a prosecutor asked him, "Is it not a fact that you are simply lying?" Arthur Seyss-Inquart claimed that he sent people to Auschwitz but it was not bad there because there was an orchestra.
 * ...expecting that the German people would favorably regard his loyalty to Hitler after his death I assume this is a PoV not a fact.
 * I've tried to word this better but maybe I should just take it out.
 * ...far more than any other group Could it be linked to an article?
 * I don't know
 * ...Despite the lingering doubts of some of the judges Could you mention some examples?
 * It's not stated in the sources and perhaps not known which judges had doubts about the retroactivity of the crimes against peace charge.
 * In France, some verdicts were met with outrage from the media and especially from organizations for deportees and resistance fighters, as they were perceived as too lenient. Could you mention some examples?
 * Done
 * Two pictures depict aggression against the USSR (File:RIAN archive 2251 Destroyed Stalingrad does not give up.jpg; File:Men with an unidentified unit execute a group of Soviet civilians kneeling by the side of a mass grave.jpg). I suggest that the first picture be replaced with a picture about the Destruction of Warsaw.
 * I've removed the pictures which is what Brigade Piron suggested repeatedly. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from UndercoverClassicist
A really important article and, I appreciate, not an easy one to write or get right. I'm not an expert in the subject matter, and thse comments come with a context of a great deal of admiration for the article and the work done on it so far. The writing is extremely impressive.
 * I realise I haven't really wrapped this one up: I am certainly leaning support on the basis of what I can assess, particularly the quality of the writing and explanation, which are really top-notch. I am a little hesitant to vote that way for comprehensiveness concerns: while I understand the rationale for a relatively short bibliography, there are also risks to that approach; similarly, while I think the ongoing moves to branch out some more expansive material (like the list of witnesses) into sub-articles are good, I think they also indicate that there's a slightly unresolved tension between brevity and comprehensiveness here. I'd be more comfortable voting support if another editor more knowledgeable about the subject matter were to chime in (and I recognise Buidhe's considerable expertise here): for the moment, I'll hold off until more content-focused reviews come in, but I'm happy to review that if there's a risk of the nomination being archived for lack of support. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm down to the top of "Indictment" at the moment: more later. Again, my hat off to you for this vital but demanding piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : I'm with User:Borsoka that it feels odd to implicitly exclude e.g. the disabled, LGBT people and Romani people from the "systematic murder" category. I appreciate that including them in the Holocaust is a very thorny topic, and that brevity is important here, but could we have something like ?
 * See the edit made to this paragraph
 * Happy with this: now threads the needle nicely.
 * Why but ? Personally, I'd hyphenate throughout.
 * Done
 * : not sure the capitalisation works here (as it's only correct for the title of the declaration, not the concept of the same name): either make Punishment for War Crimes a title and capitalise, so or make it a description, as here, and decapitalise. The link can stay either way.
 * Done
 * : became bogged down, surely?
 * Done
 * : I worry that this might be heading slightly towards an NPOV problem: did the Soviets openly want an unfair trial, or did they argue that a short, fairly perfunctory operation would be sufficient to establish the Nazis' guilt? Similarly, I imagine both sides would have called their proposal "fair". Appreciate the need for brevity here, but it might help to be a little more specific on the concrete differences of rules and procedure that each side wanted.
 * On this point: this review of Hirsch gives the opposite impression: that the British and Americans were the ones originally pushing for extra-legal punishment, while it was Stalin's influence that ensured a courtroom trial was held at all.
 * That is accurate. The Soviet Union wanted a trial in which the defense would not be given the chance to make a case, thus not a fair trial by Western standards. The trial would be held for propaganda purposes, not with the aim of securing a fair outcome. The UK especially was wary of the prospect of war crimes trials, as stated in the article, thus favoring summary execution of Nazi leaders. Indeed Hirsch argues that the trial may not have been held at all if the Soviet Union hadn't pushed for it (although this is not a claim made in the article).
 * Understood: I think the recent edits are a big improvement. I would still replace "fair trial" with a more neutral term to explain what would be fair(er) about it (for instance, including that point about the defence not being allowed to speak in the Soviets' definition of a "trial"). After all, whether the Nuremberg trials were fair was (and perhaps still is) something of a bone of contention, and the US's stipulations were certainly not all about ensuring fairness. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you are happy with the revised wording now. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : is it worth explaining briefly why he was new?
 * I don't think it's relevant.
 * I think it's worth thinking, then, about why his newness is relevant: the point is, I think, that Truman is having to play the hand that Roosevelt, via Yalta etc, has dealt him. I don't see Roosevelt's name in the article at all: it would be good to make a little more explicit that the person who decided the US was doing this thing and the person who had to carry it out were different people. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sellars gives the impression that Roosevelt was not much involved in these plans at all and it was Truman who made the decision to announce an international court. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose that raises the question of whether we need the "new" at all? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * removed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : "exact" could be omitted as needless here.
 * Done
 * : will defer to the sources here, but is that quite correct as stated? For instance, the Leipzig war crimes trials of 1921 prosecuted individuals for war crimes under international law, such as sinking hospital ships on the high seas. The implication I read from the sentence as written in the article is that previously, a state would be put on trial rather than an individual, but that wasn't always true. From what I can tell, the difference is that the court itself was international, as opposed to justice being done under the law of one of the involved nations.
 * The Leipzig trials were held by Germany under classical jurisdictional rules which include the provision that states have jurisdiction over their own citizens and can prosecute alleged crimes committed beyond their internationally recognized borders (extraterritorial jurisdiction is not the same as universal jurisdiction). There was a concept of war crime as a criminal violation of the laws of war, but it was effectual in Leipzig because of German ratification of various treaties such as the Hague and Geneva conventions that called for prosecution of violators. It is not the case that states were subject to criminal responsibility, but the principle of state responsibility was used in litigation when states sued each other at the Permanent Court of International Justice.
 * What was different at Nuremberg was trying individuals for violations of international law, such as the acts of aggression and systematic crimes against humanity. They were not tried according to German military law (as at the Leipzig trials) but a separate legal code. The previous legal immunity for acts of sovereign states, and superior orders as a defense, were abolished in the case of international crimes. This was "the true beginning of international criminal law" according to Sayapin. It's possible that the article could do a better job of explaining this for a reader who might not know much about legal systems. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense: I agree it could (and should) be explained more clearly in the article. The implication I get from the second paragraph of "legal basis" is that the idea of trying an individual for war crimes was novel. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : this sentence is a little ambiguous: did the British propose "widespread and systematic attacks on civilians" as a definition of war crimes (so ?
 * Technically, the wording of "Widespread and systematic" postdates Nuremberg; it actually is the wording used in the Rome Statute. I've added in a direct quote from the charter.
 * : this one took me a minute to parse: "limited the tribunal's jurisdiction"?
 * Done
 * : alternate might be a touch WP:JARGONy: do we mean something like
 * The difference was that the alternate was not allowed to vote on the final verdict unless the main judge was incapacitated. All the sources use "alternate", which I don't really see as jargon.
 * Perhaps not, but it's certainly not a word where readers will naturally know and assume the meaning intended by the article (it could very well mean that someone was going to choose between the two later, for example): I'd suggest explaining what you've just set out. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you happy with the wording change done by another editor? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : why not "largest"?
 * Done
 * : it's usually referred to as the OSS, so suggest
 * Done
 * The OSS is now not introduced, which it probably should be. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : "personnel's" like this reads unidiomatically to me: style guides often advise avoiding the possessive of indeclinable nouns, because we end up with this awkwardness where it's inflected as if singular but semantically plural. Suggest either or.
 * Done
 * Grammatically, I think it does need to be either "its limited English", "their limited English", "its members' limited English" or something like that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

More:


 * : suggest hyphenation: per MOS:HYPHEN, since it's the war that was aggressive, not the charge. We'd do the same for e.g.  even when we wouldn't write "A Sound of Thunder is a short-story". The same has been done for "crimes-against-peace charges" further down.
 * Rephrased
 * : now a little unclear: did the French get crimes against humanity and the Soviets get war crimes on the Western and Eastern front? It sounds more like we mean that both delegations were to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes; the French would have responsibility for those committed on the Western Front, and the Soviets for those committed on the Eastern Front. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed
 * : slight grammatical ambiguity here as to what, exactly, was outside the court's jurisdiction (was it World War II, its beginning, or crimes committed before its beginning)? Suggest "crimes committed before the beginning of World War II [or a specific date, since when WWII began is not a straightforward question], which were placed outside the court's jurisdiction"
 * The Nuremberg charter neither gives a date range for its applicability, nor does it strictly speaking limit its jurisdiction to the war itself. However, because the enumerated charges were crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity only when there was a nexus with the preceding crimes effectively its jurisdiction was limited accordingly.
 * Gotcha: I think "crimes committed before the beginning of World War II,[EFN if felt helpful] which were placed outside the court's jurisdiction" is clearer then: it's the crimes, not the war or its beginning, that were outside jurisdiction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : lots of war here, and it's better to use a colon to link sentences where the second explains the first. Suggest
 * Done
 * Ends a little abruptly now; "enabling Germany's war effort" would be better than simply "enabling Germany's war", if a full explanation is felt unnecessary. I appreciate the need for brevity (on which see my comment far below about the article's scope), but the prose still needs to thread the needle with quality and clarity. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : was German not an official language of the tribunal?
 * That's correct, but all proceedings and documents were required to be translated into the defendant's language. See Nuremberg charter Article 25.
 * should be difficulty of in this context, I think.
 * Done
 * : I don't understand how separating this charge would keep the proceedings under American control.
 * Rewrote
 * Lodging a mild protest against "committed suicide", though I understand that it's permitted by the MoS.
 * Changed 2/3 uses to "Killed himself"
 * Out of interest, why not the third? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "Killed themselves" sounds kind of awkward and I don't really like other suicide wordings. In this case no one can object to stigmatizing Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler although suicide was the least of their crimes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : do we know who added to it? Was it just the British?
 * Removed, see Priemel 81-83 for wrangling over the list but I'm not sure it's relevant to mention
 * I'm a little concerned that we're making a lot of decisions to cut down and simplify the story: I'd understand that if the story was going to be told at more length elsewhere, but this seems like the lowest-level article for most of what we're talking about. Not so much a quibble on this individual point as part of a general unease about comprehensiveness. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added multiple paragraphs on this to List of defendants at the International Military Tribunal. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : can this be nuanced a little: all of them (on both counts)? What does Priemel base this statement on?
 * This was the general impression, based on Priemel's reading of caricatures and private papers among other sources
 * Could we nuance slightly: perhaps name some of these observers, or talk about the press, if they're involved? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : we wouldn't say changes of the defendants list, so "changes to and expansion of" would work, or else "Jackson demanded that the list of defendants be changed and expanded as late as October."
 * Reworded
 * : italicise in absentia, as is normal in HQRS?
 * Done
 * What exactly does mean?
 * Reworded
 * : I'd suggest that this might be better placed where it would have some tangible consequences: did any of the lawyers throw their defendants under the bus, so to speak? Also, a question mark on the term Wehrmacht, firstly for accuracy (not everyone on trial was military or a part of that organisation, so do we mean "German national honor" or something similar?). Secondly and more vaguely, there's a tendency in Anglophone scholarship to use German-language terms (Wehrmacht, Panzer, Reich, Luftwaffe...) for Nazi institutions where we'd translate the equivalent term in other languages (it's always French tanks, never French chars, or the Japanese Empire, or the Italian Army...), which can have the consequence of giving them a sort of exotic gloss. I'm not saying that it's doing that here, but I'd always think hard about whether translating is a better option, given that not doing so can put us in some unsavoury company. More prosaically, if Wehrmacht is staying, it should be wl'd (only) on first mention.
 * Priemel does say that the lawyers seemed to be in general agreement that the Wehrmacht’s reputation mattered a great deal more than Keitel’s and Jodl’s lives but on reflection I've removed it as the article already has enough other coverage about defense of the Wehrmacht's reputation.
 * : a run-on sentence which becomes ungrammatical: "at the expense of..." grammatically modifies "focused" but describes a consequence of downplaying survivor testimony. Suggest, or else split the sentence after "testimony from survivors" and say something like "This strategy increased the credibility of their case, since survivor testimony was considered less reliable and more vulnerable to accusations of bias, but reduced public interest in the proceedings."
 * Done
 * : a nice metaphor, but would suggest rephrasing into more literal language for accessibility. Did the judge want the evidence read in translation into the record?
 * Reworded
 * : perhaps a legalism, but are conspiracy charges not substantitive?
 * Reworded
 * : a very internet-native turn of phrase. Suggest "and made forceful arguments against the notion". Has Priemel explicitly said that the idea that Nuremberg wanted to create collective blame (a la Versailles) was false? If so, we could more neutrally add "which Priemel has described as "utterly bananas", or a similar phrase.
 * I am not sure that this is an "internet-native turn of phrase"; references to strawman arguments have been common since around 1960 per the NGRAMS results and it doesn't seem like unencyclopedic language to me. I have mulled it over and cannot think of another way to concisely convey the same information in different words. Priemel makes it clear that the prosecution did not seek to present the entire German nation as guilty as the defense claimed.
 * Perhaps something like ? Not a huge problem, but I really can't imagine seeing that phrase in a printed academic work of history. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * and : see comments on hyphenation above.
 * Reworded
 * : "no more effective"?
 * Done
 * : of the conspiracy, surely?
 * Reworded
 * : per WP:NONFREE, this quotation needs to be attributed: we've got two sources cited in the sentence, but it isn't clear which one the quotation is from. Ideally we'd have "reached what Soandso has called...".
 * Reworded
 * Italicise as in the eponymous article?
 * Done
 * : suggest "Shawcross attempted", as the last person mentioned is Lauterpacht.
 * Done
 * : as there is a British Foreign Office, suggest "the German Foreign Office, army and navy.".
 * Done
 * Sonderweg is linked for a second time under "French prosecution".
 * Fixed
 * I'd briefly explain the technical term mens rea, as it's quite important to understanding the sentence it's in.
 * Done
 * : this reads a little like arson, murder and jaywalking: is there a better way to phrase "Germanization" (Cultural genocide?) to get across the seriousness of it to the French prosecutors?
 * If it sounds like arson murder and jaywalking that is the same impression that the judges must have gotten, because many of the French prosecutors' charges seemed much less serious than the crimes presented by the other delegations, particularly the Soviet Union.
 * Perhaps the order needs some thought, then: massacres certainly don't seem trivial, and going straight from there to Germanization creates a jarring effect that I'm not sure would have been in the original prosecution, or the sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Rewrote (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : "in part in order" is a little inelegant: "partly in order"?
 * Done
 * : are we presenting these as a single, unified strategy? If not, suggest strategies and, later, cases.
 * Done
 * : were these themselves victims?
 * I believe they were all or largely members of the French resistance but am unable to find sources saying so. The most famous was probably resistance fighter and Auschwitz survivor Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier.
 * Worth naming? Again, I'd read this suggestion alongside bigger points about brevity and scope. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Added (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : prune to "the only part of the French charges accepted"?
 * Done
 * : suddenly could be read as a little sensationalising: had they not revealed that they would be calling him in advance?
 * There was no advance announcement, it was a surprise when he showed up.
 * I think it would strike a better tone to state the first part of that: perhaps "...von Paulus, who had not been disclosed as among their witnesses", or similar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there doesn't seem to have been any requirement to announce witnesses in advance (although the defense complained about it). The Americans also called surprise witnesses according to Hirsch, but it was Paulus' appearance that caused the most surprise, the court had to be adjourned temporarily. However, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the overall legacy of the trials, so I removed the word "suddenly". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : it was the two fates, not the fate and the nationalities, that were blurred: so, "they blurred the fate of Jews with that of..."
 * Done
 * : either "casting doubt on the entire proceedings" or "calling the entire proceedings into question".
 * Done
 * : I'm sure he was eloquent, but is it encyclopaedic to say so in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of a secondary source?
 * Removed as unnecessary
 * : I understand the importance of saying in this article that the defendants accepted the reality of the Holocaust, but I'm not sure that the link quite works here, since more than just the Holocaust was in contention.
 * The only relevant article I can find to link is the Holocaust denial article, but I could unlink it if you don't find the link helpful.
 * I think the link might be a little misleading: it implies that we're talking strictly about the Holocaust here, but we're not: we're also talking about waging wars of aggression, massacring PoWs, and so on. How about "None of the defendants tried to assert that any alleged Nazi crimes, including the Holocaust, had not occurred..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed link (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : we've got a parenthetical clause in here: either comma it off ("arguing that, because Germany was a civilised country, few...") or rearrange ("arguing that few Germans could have supported Hitler, because Germany...")
 * Done
 * : this is repeated from earlier: is that intentional? As before, I think it would be useful to say something concrete about how this made a difference, if indeed it did.
 * Removed, see above
 * : again, comma off the clause "including Himmler... and Bormann".
 * Done
 * : suggest better as "claims that conservative defendants had enabled..."
 * Done
 * : Hitler's or Goering's?
 * Reworded

Stopping for a bit, halfway through "Defense". An extremely complex subject navigated extremely skilfully. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * : as with mens rea further up, I'd explain this: it isn't ideal for non-Latin-speaking readers (apparently we have some of those!) to have to click a link to understand the sentence.
 * Done
 * : it only becomes clear from the wikilink that this is a British invasion of Norway (rather than, say, of Germany). Suggest a rephrase to something like "this invasion was undertaken to frustrate a British plans to invade the same country".
 * Done
 * : effectively can mean either "to great effect" or "more-or-less"; I don't think the ambiguity works in our favour here.
 * Reworded. The point is that defense lawyers called witnesses who actually/inadvertently bolstered the prosecution case.
 * Nice job: can we say "inadvertently" here, or is there any chance that some of them were doing it deliberately? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Priemel strongly implies that the damage was inadvertent, but on the other hand I am not sure that he directly states it as necessary to avoid WP:OR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : suggest Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain speech denouncing the Soviet threat, made in the United States midway through the trial, delighted the defense}}: current phrasing could be read as implying that Churchill delivered it at Nuremberg.
 * I ended up removing the sentence because I'm not sure it's essential to include.
 * Hm: there is a definite thread in this article about how the trials go from being a (fairly) all-Allied affair and basically situated in WWII, to an early-Cold-War face-off between the Western Allies and the Soviets: I think the Iron Curtain speech is important to that narrative. At the risk of beating a worn-out drum, this is another point that makes me suggest that the IMT needs its own article to allow sufficient comprehensivity. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-added. See my comments below about the scope (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : this is a little vague and could do with some concrete substantiation. Given that the statement is almost at the end of the trial, I'm not really clear on how it intersects with what went before: is this a general feature of the whole proceedings or did it emerge during the defence portion?
 * It seems like during the defense the US and British prosecutors split up most of the cross-examinations between themselves, but did allow French and Soviet prosecutors to intervene, so I removed it.
 * : likewise, I think this could do with some explanation or expansion to ensure that the article is comprehensive.
 * The main examples are already given, namely Seidl's shenanigans and the Western judges letting the defense use the trial as a platform to criticize the Soviet Union.
 * Would they be better moved or recapped here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : I'm not sure "a master of self-promotion" is quite encyclopaedic in Wikipedia's voice, and although should be followed here by a finite verb: although he did not assume... or name...
 * If anyone can be described as a master of self promotion in wikivoice it would be Speer. Nevertheless, removed and reworded.
 * Yes, entirely fair: I'd be happy with it as "described by a later biographer as a 'master of self-promotion'" vel sim. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : not sure about the read of this one: how about "stating that war was evil in itself, and "to initiate..."
 * The actual words were "War is essentially an evil thing"
 * Yes: it just reads a bit Sunday-School to state that so baldly in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of the tribunal. I like the solution of making it a direct quotation: still suggest linking malum in se on "essentially an evil thing", which also helps to disambiguate "essentially" as meaning "in its essence" rather than "more or less". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Used quote instead. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : italicise aggression per MOS:WORDSASWORDS?
 * Reworded
 * : sequence of tenses (the conspiracy was done by the time of the judgement): "the judgement found that there had been..." More optionally, consider "Austria had been a victim..." later.
 * Done
 * We still have, which implies that the conspiracy was still ongoing when the judgement was made ("John said that there was a cat behind that tree" means that the cat was still there when he spoke; "John said that there had been a cat behind that tree" means that it's gone.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : I'm not sure what exactly a 'broad interpretation' would be in this context.
 * Reworded
 * : a little confusing in the phrasing: suggest "the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best, with only two defendants charged on those grounds being acquitted", or "the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best; only two defendants charged on those grounds were acquitted."
 * Done
 * : this seems to mean something closer to "the judges interpreted their jurisdiction over crimes against humanity narrowly".
 * Done
 * : perhaps clearer "as asserting its innocence"?
 * I want to include a link to war crimes of the Wehrmacht which isn't possible with that wording.
 * A reasonable compromise, then. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's taken me until about this point to realise that some of the people we talked about earlier - the industrialists, and possibly the propagandists - weren't actually on trial. It certainly seemed from the "Defendants" section that Krupp would be part of the legal proceeding that was described afterwards, but now it turns out that he was part of a different trial. More generally, I'm still a little confused as to how the IMT and the NMT fit together, and the extent to which each "counts" as "The Nuremberg Trials".
 * Both industrialists and propagandists were charged at the IMT; although a greater number of industrialists were charged at the NMT. As stated in the article, Gustav Krupp was charged at IMT but not tried because of his poor health. Prosecutors had actually meant to charge his son Alfried Krupp but the error wasn't caught in time. Combining the IMT and NMT makes sense from a US and German perspective but less so from the other countries' perspective. When I started working on this article, I wanted it to cover the IMT exclusively. But now I realize that there are prominent works such as Priemel and Weinke that do deal jointly with the IMT and NMT as "Nuremberg trials", which justifies the article organization. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would help considerably to set out the scope of the trials more clearly - in particular, the division between the IMT and NMT - before we dive into the IMT. This might need a bigger structural rethink. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. The form that the NMT took and their scope was heavily affected by the fact that plans to hold additional international trials fell apart. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking this one as the discussion has moved elsewhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : I would generally shy away from metaphors like this in encyclopaedic writing, as above: they trade precision and accessibility for literary flair, when we generally want to do the opposite.
 * Reworded
 * : wikilink to French resistance?
 * It would be a duplicate link as the French resistance is wikilinked earlier in the article
 * : this could do with fleshing out a little more. Presumably, the basic point is that most Germans were in too miserable a physical condition to care much about a trial?
 * Rewrote, a more recent source presents evidence that a majority of Germans actually did follow the trial despite their circumstances.
 * : an imposition, surely?
 * Done
 * Is it worth pointing out that "collective guilt" had an emotive legacy in Germany: did the German press draw a link to Versailles, for example? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Priemel mentions that the defense lawyers tried to mention Versailles, but the judges wouldn't let them pontificate about it. I'm not sure about the public in general, but I'm not sure it would be WP:DUE since most results for searches of Nuremberg trials Versailles focus on aspects of the treaty that could be seen as a legal precedent. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : the double relative clause is awkward (and vociferous is a loaded word: close to line of WP:NPOV). Suggest "The German churches, both Catholic and Protestant, were determined proponents of amnesty. The idea also gained cross-party support in West Germany, which was established in 1949."
 * Done
 * : who exactly was receiving (and so in a position to accept or decline) the offer: the criminals themselves or the West German state? Not sure "in order to" works here: you use something to do something.
 * Reworded
 * : High Commissioner of what, exactly?
 * Linked Allied High Commission
 * : would be worth saying who this was. Also worth being extra-clear that this is specifically the last prisoner sentenced by the NMT, as we find out soon after that IMT prisoners were still behind bars.
 * Reworded
 * : I think this has to be framed as a secondary source's judgement: international criminal law definitely existed before 1945.
 * I have changed "invented" to "developed".
 * Not sure the meaning has substantially changed (if you develop a vaccine from nothing, you invent it): I'd be much happier with "have been credited with" or similar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed to relying on a quote from reliable source as you suggested. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : opinions of what, exactly?
 * Reworded
 * : difficult to follow with the long final list item: suggest "Other novel concepts, such as the charge of crimes against humanity, the charge of conspiracy, and the imposition [don't mix gerunds and participles] of criminal penalties on individuals for breaches of international law, attracted little criticism}}
 * Reworded
 * : could this be expanded slightly to make the implications explicit: were some defenders acknowledging that no law prohibited what the defendants had done, but arguing that they could legitimately be tried for it anyway? IF so, how about adding "...was not binding in international proceedings, and so the defendants could be tried under natural law" (or whatever justification they came up with).
 * Clarified. But the argument was mainly that retroactive application of criminal law was acceptable in international proceedings.
 * Well clarified. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * : since simultaneous interpretation only technically involves the interpreter not waiting for the speaker to finish, should this be something more like "the first use ... in a major criminal proceeding" or "the first documented use"?
 * For comprehensiveness, it would be good to have a link to the legacy of the trials (specifically, the precedent of "crimes against humanity" and universal jurisdiction therefor) in France (see and Google-translate French Wikipedia) and for Eichmann in Jerusalem.
 * The legal legacy of the trials is more closely connected to the ICC, ICTR, ICTY (all mentioned) than the Eichmann trial, which was based on a law only partly inspired by Nuremberg (other countries like France also adopted crimes against humanity into their domestic law, but I think it is more relevant to crimes against humanity than this article). Universal jurisdiction is unrelated to the justification for prosecution at Nuremberg.
 * Again, struck as the discussion is now elsewhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of material in the Russian FA that I don't see here, for example:
 * On the accommodation of defendants, soldiers and lawyers during the trial, and the (extensive) security operation around this.
 * The substance of the final statements made by the defendants, only briefly alluded to here.
 * A short section on how the simultaneous translation worked, which is notable as this is part (admittedly, one smallish part among many) of the trials' legacy.

A more general comment on sourcing: we have an article, Nuremberg Trials bibliography, which is roughly four or five times the length of this article's bibliography. I notice in particular a lot of reliance on Hirsch and Priemel, who together seem to account for a substantial majority of the citations. Given the contentious and sensitive nature of the subject matter, I think it would be useful to weave in a greater range of authorities, even if that would simply involve swapping a citation from one source for another that says the same thing, to ensure that the article reflects and can be seen to reflect the scholarly consensus. The French article has a lot of bibliography not used here, as does the Russian FA (not just books in Russian); I notice in particular that there's only one book in German: again, there's a lot of works cited heavily on German Wikipedia that don't appear here.

OK, that's me. I know there's a lot here: please take that as a measure of the article's scale and importance rather than its quality. Overall, most of the above is polish for the prose or questions for clarity: if there are any question-marks, they are over whether the article is fully comprehensive on this huge subject, and how thoroughly it has been able to integrate and reflect the volume of scholarship on it. Again, it's a hugely impressive piece of work, and it's important that Wikipedia does this one well, so thank you for taking it on in such a way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The current article length is nearly 7,000 words. At this point if I were adding significant new content I would also be looking to see if I could reduce the article length elsewhere. I'm certainly willing to consider if there are overlooked aspects but the length also should be kept under control.
 * I know there are different approaches to citing sources. I used to use a more "kitchen sink" approach but now my opinion is that the best way is to start with the most high-quality, well-regarded and recent overviews of the stated topic (in this case certainly Hirsch and Priemel), filling out any gaps with other sources. This approach leads to a smaller bibliography and I don't really believe in citing other sources simply for the benefit of having a larger bibliography. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 3 of the sources are in French and 3 are in German. Can you make the case for completeness grounds with such a limited use of non-English sources?
 * Tusa & Tusa 2010 and Musa 2016 come from smaller publishers. Of the millions of words that have been written about the trials, are these two sources the best option?
 * Tusa & Tusa and Musa were both added as a result of Brigade Piron's concerns about covering the British contribution. I would be ok removing Tusa & Tusa as it is the oldest and weakest source cited but I wouldn't call Brill a "small publisher". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that there's conflicting concerns here, and something of a difference of philosophy. Personally, I would be much more comfortable erring on the side of including more sources: this is a much-studied topic, and I'd see it as a corollary of WP:DUEWEIGHT (specifically, the stipulation that articles need to reflect the balance of HQRSs) that we're going to have some big articles where the subject matter doesn't split well but has a huge historiography. On the approach to sources, again, there's pros and cons, but secondary sources and monographs always embody a particular author's interpretations: how does a reader of this article, or we as a scholarly community assessing it, know what's the communis opinio versus what's Hirsch's own pet theory? This is particularly true when we're implicitly assuming or stating that you can get practically everything you need to get in the historiography of this topic from English-language sources, and I'd be amazed if that were the case given how differently these trials were viewed in (particularly) France, the Soviet Union and Germany. At the moment, this is more a hypothetical concern, since I can't point to much specific that I know hasn't been included (though I do think the closing statements are significant and should be in this article), but others who know the field better may be able to pronounce with more confidence in either direction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * UndercoverClassicist, note that WP:NONENG - which is policy - states "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance." So each non-English language source used will need a justification as to what it brings to the article which no English language source could. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point: I'm somewhat taking as read that the scholarship in other languages looks different to that in English. It's almost universally the case that scholars from different countries will have different theoretical paradigms, perspectives, interests and so on in a given topic: if a certain perspective is well-represented in (say) German scholarship but not in English, then some of that German scholarship needs to be included for the article to be truly comprehensive. As I read WP:NONENG, the only rationale for systematically not including non-English sources would be that there's nothing in them which can't also be found in Anglophone ones. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Further to this: from reading some of the comments below, it seems that we've got here an article originally intended to be on the IMT, which has now (sensibly) expanded to include the NMT. We're also now brushing up against problems where we can't really be comprehensive on the IMT without introducing page length concerns (which, in my view, are far less of a concern that comprehensiveness, but that's perhaps a philosophical difference). Given that, I think there's a very strong argument for hiving off the IMT, like the NMT, into its own article, and using this one to summarise the process as whole: which could include, as User:Piotrus states below, why Nuremberg was chosen as a site, and some more detail, as discussed above, as to the precise place of the trials vis-a-vis the understanding of international law that came before and after them. In turn, the split would then allow more detailed coverage of the IMT itself in the corresponding article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Piotrus
1. This is possibly out of FA scope, but it is a bit jarring to me: interwiki problems. This may also be within FA scope as it may concern article's scope or name. On English Wikipedia, International Military Tribunal (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1667613) does not have an article, it redirects to Nuremberg trials, a term used to cover 1945-1946 trials. Then we have an article on Subsequent Nuremberg trials for American-presided trials for 1946–1949. Assuming we are happy with the name and scope of our articles, should we crate an article about the IMT? And I do find it a bit confusing that the concept of "Nuremberg trials" on English Wikipedia is limited to the IMT only, with the other trials split of the to "subsequent" article. Is this really how historiography defines the topics? For the record, pl: Procesy norymberskie (lit. Nuremberg trials) links to IMT, and our Nuremberg trials article does not have interwikis to pl or de wikis at all (since those go to the IMT one). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

2. My second comment is about comprehensivness. Polish Wikiepdia article has a section 'Poland and the IMT' (pl:Międzynarodowy_Trybunał_Wojskowy_w_Norymberdze). It contains some information that seems relevant, yet that is not present in our article. For example, only one of two Polish witnesses is mentioned (I added a link to his pl wiki article - this raises the minor technical question of whether FAC require checking if red links have articles on other wikis and using some form of ill? There are few other red links in this article which I did not check against Wikidata). Seweryna Szmaglewska is not mentioned. The article doesn't discuss the controversy related to limiting the IMT to only Big Four (Poland, for example, was not indepdently represented). See for example ("The thesis also reviews Poland's participation in Nuremberg trial, Poland's omission in the indictment..."). See also, for example, (article is in Polish, my translation from open mirror): Even before the end of the war, the Allies decided that only representatives of the great powers would sit in the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Poland, through its representatives, unsuccessfully demanded that it be granted special status due to the ravages wrought by the Nazis. Poland's complaint that the official indictment of Hans Frank did not take due account of the suffering of the Polish nation went unnoticed. Eventually, thanks to Soviet support, the Polish delegation was accredited and brought its own indictment, but its role was limited to providing evidence to the Tribunal; in addition, she gained access to the relevant documentation and the right to interrogate persons suspected of crimes committed on Polish soil. The Polish government, which sought formal recognition and wanted to counteract what it saw as the downplaying of Poland's suffering in the international arena, and wanting to achieve its goals in domestic policy, decided to establish its own tribunal and give it appropriate publicity (Supreme National Tribunal). Our article does not even mention the SNT. I think the article needs to discuss the Polish dimension in a dedicated paragraph in order to be comprehensive --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well that's the thing. Poland did not participate in the trial, there was no Polish dimension. Overviews of the subject don't cover this aspect significantly; for example, in Priemel there are 12 mentions of "Poland" in comparison to 54 for "France". I believe it makes more sense to write about what actually happened, not what might have happened. Not every witness is mentioned because there is finite space in the article. Most of the 37 prosecution witnesses and 89 defense witnesses are not mentioned, including none of the eleven French witnesses. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering WP:NOTPAPER, and the fact that this stuff is covered in some academic sources, I think you've just helped to further illustrate the problem of this article not being comprehensive (a concern that seems to have been raised by others above). The French section seems too short anyway in my view, but that aside, it is ~200 words long, so a ~40 words mention of the Polish dimension (which, yes, is a thing, per soruces cited) would not be too much. And the article is not too long, a rough word count suggests it is only 80% the size of our article on The Holocaust, for example. The French article on fr:Procès_de_Nuremberg is more than twice the size our English article, and covers more aspects (for example it has a section dedicated to why Nuremberg was chosen as the site of the trials, something our article does not seem to touch upon). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with adding a mention about Poland (or possibly Czechoslovakia and other countries) trying to get a role in the proceedings but not being accepted; what I disagree with is adding an entire paragraph. As for comprehensiveness / length, I think there is room for some expansion but at the same time there is so much written about these trials that I want to keep in mind balance, summary style, and conciseness. There is no reason that Poland and the International Military Tribunal couldn't be created if it is a notable topic. (So is the Office of Strategic Services and the International Military Tribunal which gets 1 short sentence in the article at present). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A few sentences are required to address the case of Poland. Now, I don't think it would be bad if that single paragraph discussed not just Poland but also some other countries in similar situation. Perhaps that would be a reasonable way to deal with that. A separate issue concerns other aspects of comprehensivness, from location to the mention of Seweryna Szmaglewska (her testimony is mentioned in a number of works, ex. here, here or here (this is another work that discusses the "Polish dimension" of the trial in at least several paragraphs). I am not sure if we should mention all witnesses, but I think her name should be somewhere in the article, her testimony is seen as relevant by a number of scholars writing about the trial. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose until the comprehensivness issues are addressed. (The naming issue is complex and I am not saying other wikis do it better, and fixing interwikis is outside of the FA's scope). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you notice that I actually did add the content you asked for, imo disproportionate to Poland 's actual influence on the trial or lack thereof? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, since you did not ping me or comment in this thread since 12 days ago. The Polish participation aspect is now mentioned in one-and-a-half sentence, which I guess meets the vare minimum. But what about other issues mentioned? Seweryna Szmaglewska, choice of Nuremberg, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * After checking various sources, I don't see them giving more weight to Szmaglewska than to other Soviet witnesses who testified about crimes that they had experienced. I'm not sure what you mean by "choice of Nuremberg", but the decision to hold the trial in Nuremberg is briefly discussed in the "Legal basis" section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do think this illustrates how our article is not comprehensive. We should discuss the " other Soviet witnesses" and non-Soviet ones too. Right now the article's coverage of this is random. The French section, for example, says "Eleven witnesses, including victims of Nazi persecution, were called; resistance fighter and Auschwitz survivor Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier testified about crimes she had witnessed." Why is Vaillant-Couturier singled out for a mention? That sentence does not even impart the reader with any useful information (it should clarify she testified on what she had seen during the three years she spent in Auschwitz). Why is she mentioned but not Leo van der Essen, Hans Cappelen or others? Soviet section mentions witnesses Samuel Rajzman and Abraham Sutzkever, but not Nikolai Lomakin, Joseph Orbeli, Erich Buschenhagen, Friedrich von Paulus, etc. This seems very abitrary. PS. I do appreciate the creation of List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal, with the very useful column on "Testified about". I do think, however, that all of that information should be included in our article, in the prose format - and the fact that the list of witnesses is still incomplete is a testament to the fact that our article is likewise incomplete, and until this is addressed, it is not ready for a Featured status. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a drive-in query because I do not fully understand Piotrus' concerns. Do you suggest that 1. all witnesses should be mentioned; or 2. each reference to a wittness should be explained; or 3. specifically Szmaglewska should be mentioned in addition to other witnesses already listed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that naming all the witnesses would give undue weight to the role of witnesses in the trial, compared to prosecutors, defense lawyers, defendants, documentary evidence, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you, but I'd like to understand Piotrius' proposal. Borsoka (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 is not necessary, but I would not oppose it. 2 is certainly needed. 3 - probably. To build on 1 and 3, I think we should mention more than a few witnesses, from my reading of the sources some where quite important. As for due weight, my point is that right now there is no explanation why the few witnesses we mention in the article are featured, and not the others; and again, my reading does not suggest that the ones we mentioned are the ones who are seen as "the most important". Instead, the fact that we mention very few witnesses, seemingly chosen at random, illustrates the haphazard nature of this article, or perhaps better put, its lack of comprehensivness. I think the article needs more content; barring consensus in sources saying that "among witnesses at Nuremberg, X, Y and Z are considered the most influential", a good rule of thumb would be too ensure it mentions all currently blue-linked witnesses (and yes, also prosecutors, defense lawyers, and defendants; in fact, if the latter are not all mentioned, I'd be shocked - how can we have an article about a trial that does not even list all defendants??). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the defendants, judges, and chief prosecutors of the IMT are mentioned. But there were a number of assistant prosecutors (some of whom are named) and others who helped with the proceedings; the various delegations to Nuremberg, as stated in the article, numbered around 1,000 people. I don't see how it is possible to mention everyone who participated in the proceedings or had any non-trivial role in the formation of the trial, yet still end up with something resembling an encyclopedia article. (For example Hirsch's book is over 400 pages and she does not mention all the prosecution witnesses). Thus, I have tried to mention those whose role is considered most historically significant, as indicated by being given weight in reliable sources, although it is always possible I'm mistaken about which ones to mention. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the straw man arguments aside, please. I am not asking you to mention 1,000 minor people. I am saying that this article should mention more than few witnesses - there were less than a hundred. They seem much more important than some assistant prosecutors. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * From your comment it was not clear to me which individuals involved in the trial you wanted mentioned. However, there were actually 120 witnesses at the trial and mentioning them all—certainly if you expect not just a list, but an explanation of each person's testimony—would give undue weight to the witness aspect. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And mentioning just a few, picked arbitrarily, gives them too little weight. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand we all agree that all wittnesses should not be listed. How do you think those who are mentioned in the article should be selected? Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I explained this in my comment above, signed at the moment "12:55 pm, Yesterday (UTC+9)". <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you refer to your following comment, specifically to your suggestion about "barring consensus in sources saying that 'among witnesses at Nuremberg, X, Y and Z are considered the most influential', a good rule of thumb would be too ensure it mentions all currently blue-linked witnesses". I am not sure that a reference to all currently blue-linked witnesses from the List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal would be in line with WP rules, because WP does not regard itself a reliable source. Why should we accept the present state of the list to edit an other article? Neither am I sure that reliable sources dedicated to the Nuremberg trials often contain statements about the witnesses' importance. Could you refer to scholars who mention, for example, Seweryna Szmaglewska as one of the most influential witnesses? Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , for example, calls her book (I plan on stub it shortly) "a major piece of evidence at Nuremberg" ( here's another ref that confirms her book was part of evidence at trials). This work, following a sentence "Named and described are the most important participants of the trial", names Szmuglewska (the only witness named in the work's abstract). In either case, it is the nom's responsibility to tell us why the witnesses they mention are important. I'll let the nom first tell us why Rajzman and Vaillant-Couturier deserve a mention, compared to Szmuglewska and others I mentioned (for the record, based on my readings, I certainly think Rajzman should be mentioned - but the article doesn't tell us why at present). Otherwise I stand by my view that the examples in the current article represent random cherry-picking and lack of comprehensivness. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I think now I understand your proposal. It looks reasonable although I do not know how it could be implemented consequently. Nevertheless, I still think that the article meets FA criteria. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Rajzman and Sutzkever were the only survivors of the main atrocity on trial to testify at it, as noted by Priemel. That is the reason they are mentioned, and it is already obvious from the article text. I hope you appreciate that master's theses are not generally reliable sources and they probably are not helpful in determining which witnesses are most significant. I am not sure a book titled Never Forget Your Name: The Children of Auschwitz is a great source for that either, since by the nature of the book it would seem to focus on one particular aspect of the trial insofar as it is relevant to the stated topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Seweryna Szmaglewska was the only survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the death march among the witnessess, for this fact alone she deserve a mention. Also it's weird to mention Rajzman but to omit Szmaglewska, since they both were Polish, testified together, and their testifies are complementary. Marcelus (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not true, however; Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier also testified. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously going to judge a book by its... title? It's a reliable work. Academic reviews: one, two, three,... newspaper: one, two, three, and there are many more. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Separate article on the IMT
Since this has been suggested above, I'm going to leave this here: only 411 words—under 10 percent of the article's non-lead content—are not about the IMT, so even if this article scope was limited to the IMT and moved accordingly, which I don't really oppose, it would not give much additional space for expansion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * IMT =/= the trial. Although they are closely related, sure (this tribunal held only a single trial, right?). At minimum, we should wikidata-link the redirect (International Military Tribunal to Q1667613). Analyzing how the information is split in those other wikis may give us more idea on how to divide the content. Anyway, I think this term might be a disambig to the Nurember trials (International Military Tribunal)/Nurember trials (1945–1946) and Subsequent Nuremberg trials/Nurember trials (1946–1949)/Nurember trials (U.S. military courts) (and I am still waiting for a discussion regarding whether the term 'subsequent', and the split we have, is common in literature?). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that, in practice, one can cover the IMT separately from the trial held before it. As far as I can tell, sources don't make that distinction. It also doesn't seem right to talk about "Nuremberg trials" when just the first trial is meant.
 * You can find sources just about the IMT (i.e. Hirsch, Mouralis) just the NMT (Heller) or both (Priemel, Weinke). There has been dispute over the title of the subsequent Nuremberg trials article, I am one of those who supported the official name, "Nuremberg Military Tribunals". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support a move to NMT if you were to start another discussion (and if you do, please ping me). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
This is a topic that definitely deserves feature quality. Nice work. ~ HAL  333  21:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Oxford comma is not used consistently
 * Fixed the two missing commas I could find
 * Kim Christian Priemel is linked in his second mention rather than his first.
 * Fixed
 * "the latter to make the many charts" --> Should that be "lattermost"?
 * Changed to "last"
 * D'oh
 * ", but reduced public interest in the proceedings" is a dependent clause and doesn't need that comma.
 * The comma here is to set off, since survivor testimony was considered less reliable and more vulnerable to accusations of bias,
 * "German Foreign Office, army, and navy" -- Why is "Foreign Office" capitalized and not the rest.
 * I don't know if there's a good solution here since "Foreign Office" (actually Reich Foreign Office) is the official name, whereas army and navy are not (usually if it's in English and capitalized it's Kriegsmarine and Heer, but I'd rather not introduce the audience to unfamiliar words if I can avoid it). The foreign office does not look right without capitals (although that might be the way to go), but neither does Army, and Navy.
 * "The next week, the Soviet prosecution suddenly produced former field marshal Friedrich von Paulus, captured after the Battle of Stalingrad, as a witness and questioned him about the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union" -- I might use dashes instead of commas. The sentence briefly confused me.
 * Done
 * I might word "and the Soviet contribution to victory" as "and Soviet contributions to victory" but that is just me
 * Done
 * "discriminatory laws" --> why not just say "Jim Crow laws"
 * Reworded based on checking sources again.
 * "United States admiral Chester Nimitz" --> Should "admiral" be capitalized
 * Done
 * Thanks so much for your review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to support. ~ HAL  333  15:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tytire
Thanks so much for your comments.
 * The presentation of the section "Legal basis" could be clearer. The uninformed reader may expect a (brief) presentation of this sequence: (1) what was the applicable legal basis / framework at the time; (2) what were the different expectations / references (the text now refers to "acrimonious disputes over fundamental matters" which cannot be understood from the text); (3) how did they get to the charter? - Most of the info is there but the logical sequence is not so clear.
 * Contemporary reactions: the opening sentence "The IMT judges proved their independence from the governments that appointed them, etc.)" : whose assessment is this? this needs to be qualified, whether Priemel's assessment (not contemporary) or otherwise. Again, the uniformed reader is left wondering how we went from this unreserved appreciation to "During the two decades after the war, opinions of the trial were predominantly negative...".Tytire (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have retitled "Legal basis" to "Nuremberg charter" and rewrote to clarify what some of the disputes were and how they were resolved. As for the pre-existing law, there wasn't much—this is covered in the "origins" section.
 * I removed this sentence since unfortunately, the source is not entirely clear whose assessment it is. I'm not sure there is a contradiction though, the sources mention appreciation of the procedural and evidentiary aspects of the trial along with criticism of its lack of legal basis or "retroactivity, selectivity, and jurisdiction" as Sellars puts it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks much better to me now, thanks.  Tytire (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from Brigade Piron
I think the recent changes to the article have been a big improvement and would be willing to support. My only (very small) reservation is the first paragraph of the "Legacy" section which seems to be missing a sentence about the changes in perception after the initially negative response. Thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I am working on it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, hopefully, I believe the more positive evaluation is related to the additional developments in international criminal law and tendency of drawing a straight line from Nuremberg to the Hague (as Priemel puts it) but I can't find sources that say it explicitly. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'm happy to add my support. I would say, though, that this discussions does not appear to have transcluded correctly to talk:Nuremberg trials. Can we get an admin involved to fix this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FACs are not supposed to be transcluded to the article talk page. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , one final concern - which body is meant by "Polish government"? The Polish government in exile in London, or the Communist government of People's Poland? I think this is reasonable to clarify because the former did still have some international recognition until the 1950s. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7
While I am here, a few comments. No major concerns. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  23:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does Kirsten Sellars really rate a red link?
 * There are several reviews of her books, so a clear WP:NAUTHOR pass. I realize there are different philosophies with red links, but I generally support their existence whenever a notable topic does not have an article.
 * And the link to "Poland and the International Military Tribunal" in the Judges and prosecutors section?
 * It is a notable topic also.
 * Why is Rudolf Hess's surname spelt with an eszett (Rudolf Heß) in "Contemporary reactions"?
 * Fixed
 * "this was narrowed to six: the Reich Cabinet, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the Gestapo, the SA, the SS and the SD, and the General Staff and High Command of the German military (Wehrmacht)." That makes eight. Re-phrase to make this clear, perhaps with the aid of semi-colons.
 * The commas divide the six organizations as defined in the indictment. I could replace the commas with semicolons but I'm not sure that would make it more clear
 * "Law No. 10 issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States forces had arrested almost 100,000 Germans as war criminals" That is incorrect. Law No. 10 was issued by the Allied Control Council, not the US Joint Chiefs of Staff
 * Fixed
 * "Admiral Chester Nimitz" should be "Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz"
 * Done
 * Duplicate links: "war crimes", "Einsatzgruppen", "anti-partisan warfare", "German invasion of Norway", "Foreign Office", "Expulsion of Germans"
 * I think most of these should be kept per the recent policy change on duplicate links.
 * The United States not only does not recognise the ICC, but authorises military action in retaliation for the arrest of a US citizen.
 * I know about the Hague Invasion Act, but I don't see how it's relevant to the article.
 * Typo: "mustache"
 * Fixed
 * Thanks so much for your comments + image review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass
Lots of images, although not always made best use of those available. Each image needs to be properly licenced in both the country of origin and the United States. The latter has less freedom than most other countries. All image have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Color photograph of judges' bench at IMT.jpg, File:The Palace of Justice in Nurnberg.jpg, File:Evidence about Ernst Kaltenbrunner's crimes is presented at the International Military Tribunal.jpg, File:Goering on trial (color).jpg, File:Soviet-called witness addresses the International Military Tribunal.jpg, File:Telford Taylor delivers the prosecution's opening statement during the Ministries Trial.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - US Army Signal Corps images - US PD - okay
 * File:Selection on the ramp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, 1944 (Auschwitz Album) 1a.jpg, File:Monowitz prisoners unload cement from trains for IG Farben.jpg - Polish image so under EU. Copyright term was 50 years which expired in 1994. Suggest adding a URAA tag for the United States. - okay
 * File:A.N. Trainin speaks at the War Crimes Executive Committee.jpg, File:Evidence in Nuremberg trials.jpg, File:Press at the International Military Tribunal.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - Harry S. Truman Library says US PD - okay
 * File:Ruins of Nuremberg after World War II.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - US Air Corps image - US PD - okay
 * File:At a solemn session in Berlin, the representatives of the various nations handed over to the Tribunal their indictments for the Nuremberg Trials.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - US government image - US PD - okay
 * File:Defendants in the dock at nuremberg trials.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - US Army Signal Corps image - should use PD-USGov-Army instead - US PD - okay (It would be nice if the description identified the defendants.)
 * File:Nazi Concentration Camps.webm - Germany image - copyright expired - US Navy image - US PD - okay
 * File:Proces Neurenberg, Bestanddeelnr 901-2078.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - CC0 image in US - okay
 * File:Главный обвинитель от СССР на Нюрнбергском процессе Р.А. Руденко.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired - Russian CC 4.0 copyright in US - okay
 * File:1946-10-08 21 Nazi Chiefs Guilty.ogv - Germany image - copyright expired - released into PD in the US - okay
 * File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-032-29A, Nürnberger Prozess, Zeitungsleser.jpg - Germany image - copyright expired in in 2016 - CC-BY-SA 3.0 in US - okay
 * File:Benjamin Ferencz - Chief Prosecutor in 1947 Einsatzgruppen Trial - In Courtroom 600 Where Nuremberg Trials Were Held - Palace of Justice - Nuremberg-Nurnberg - Germany - 01.jpg - Wikipedian image - CC-BY-SA 3.0 - okay

Source review
Will look in more detail later today. First question: More in a few hours! —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources used look excellent, with one possible exception: What makes Tusa & Tusa, The Nuremberg Trial, published by Skyhorse Publishing, who according to their article also publish conspiracy theories, a high quality reliable source?


 * I believe I added that source in response to feedback to beef up the British prosecution section, but since then I found other sources to cover it, and I think I could remove the Tusa & Tusa source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think removing that would be an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

With the possible exception of Tusa & Tusa, everything is high-quality, recent scholarly sourcing. The formatting is also excellent, with just the query about page numbers versus "locations". —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mouralis 2016: there is a PDF with page numbers, so you don't need to cite things like "Mouralis 2016, 3"; if you do it like this, say what the "3" stands for.
 * Same for Gemählich. In the online version, the paragraphs are numbered but we don't have pages; in the PDF, we have page numbers but not paragraph numbers.
 * If you link directly to other Wikipedias for authorlinks, you should also include fr:Guillaume Mouralis.
 * Thanks for your review.
 * Removed Tusa & Tusa.
 * The bare numbers are the paragraph numbering as that's the only one you can access without downloading a pdf which all readers may not be able to do. I am not sure how to indicate it if you feel it is necessary or beneficial to do so.
 * Linked fr:Guillaume Mouralis. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Great if you can go without Tusa & Tusa. I haven't done spot checks for your replacement, but I did a few yesterday and was fully satisfied with respect to both source to text integrity and paraphrasing.
 * For the other query (Mouralis 2016 and Gemählich), we are close to hair-splitting territory, but here goes. You are currently citing Moralis 2016 as
 * "Le procès de Nuremberg: retour sur soixante-dix ans de recherche" [The Nuremberg trial: a look back at seventy years of research]. Critique Internationale (in French). 73 (4): 159.
 * So formally you are citing a traditional paper based journal that has page numbers and does not have these paragraph numbers, which are incomprehensible to people using the paper version or the PDF. The paragraph numbers are only on the website, so if you use the paragraph numbers, shouldn't you cite the web version instead of the paper version? (I would strongly prefer to cite the paper version). A compromise suggestion that keeps full verifiability for the paper version and has ease of access would be to use , linking directly to the paragraph on the web version but giving the page number for people using the paper-based journal. —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled since for me it would make sense to use cite journal for an academic journal that had no print edition or page numbers. The links already go to the web version, which is cited. I could remove the page numbers from the bibliography entry, but I'm not sure that would be an improvement. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the situation at hand, we have a classic journal with page numbering here. If you really don't want to add page numbers to the sfn (I still can't see any reason not to do that, but maybe you can explain) you need to explain what the loc you give means, in a way that is comprehensible to users of the paper edition. —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * is there more to come on this source review, or has it stalled here? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what to say because I already explained the rationale for not using the page numbers. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks buidhe. That makes sense to me, and you are only required to provide a citation to the version of a source which you actually use; not to any other versions that may exist., is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe: As I said, if you do not use the page numbers, you should explain what the uncommented numbers you use ("Gemählich 2019, 19.") mean. A reader of the PDF (a rather natural thing to download for a user following the citation) will find the numbers totally incomprehensible. A reader of the online version probably can make an educated guess that these are the paragraph numbers. Spelling this out, for example saying paragraph 4 or using page numbers or using page numbers together with a link to the paragraph (or page numbers together with paragraph numbers that make it clear the numbering is not relative to the page) would all solve the issue.
 * @Gog the Mild: Other than this formatting issue affecting something like 15 out of the 282 footnotes, the source review would be an easy pass: the sources given are top class and the rest of the formatting is excellent. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added paragraph as requested (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks better, but you could improve by using plural "paragraphs" where that is correct. "paragraph fn 82" is also suboptimal. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed, that's what I deserve for doing search & replace on my phone lol. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy now, the source review is now a pass with flying colours. —Kusma (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I note the oppose from Piotr, and the various comments since, in particular Borsoka's. There seems to me to have been sufficient scrutiny of this article, especially since Piotr's oppose, without other reviewers also opposing, for me to consider that there is a consensus to promote, notwithstanding the actionable oppose.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)