Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Holocaust in Slovakia/archive1

The Holocaust in Slovakia

 * Nominator(s): buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about an important event that oddly didn't have any Wikipedia article until last year. This unfortunate episode in Slovak history occurred when its German-allied government deported most of its Jewish population, actually paying Germany for the privilege. It is a pair with List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, currently at FLC. The article recently passed A-class review and has been copyedited by GOCE. Thanks in advance for your comments. buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SC
Three weeks without a review? That's not a good reflection on us reviewers, (although the difficult subject matter may be the reason behind that). I'll be along shortly to make a start. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Done to the start of Anti-Jewish measures. I have only general knowledge on the history of Mitteleuropa at the period, so I am reviewing on prose and readability only. More to come. – SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of points where the refs run out of order ("Hlinka Guard.[13][3]" and "militia.[13][3]" as two examples). I am not too fussed about the point, but there are some who will say it trips up readers to see the numbers out of order (your call as to fix or ignore)
 * Fixed those, although I'm not too concerned about it either.
 * "HSĽS' " I don't push the point, but a good rule of thumb is to see if there is the sound of a second "s", so I would normally put this as "HSĽS's" (although with the mix of curly and straight punctuation and upper/lower case it's a fairly ungainly looking mix!). Your call whether you follow suit, as there is a no real fixed rule either way.
 * Reworded to get rid of them. (The sound actually from strana and very similar to English /s/).
 * Thanks for your review! buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 14:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Done to the end of Forced labour; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1938 deportations
 * No need to link "the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom" (and as you've introduced the United Kingdom at the end of the previous para, you can shorten to UK). I tend only to link to non-existent states, so the links to Nazi Germany are good.
 * Fixed
 * "voluntary Aryanization" is a circular link and advised against at WP:SELFRED. If it only occurred in Slovakia then best not to link; if it was a policy in several states, then maybe a quick stub by way of explanation?
 * I redirected voluntary Aryanization to Aryanization, where it is discussed a little, and took out the link to the later section (see below)
 * Aryanization
 * In my notes for the 1938 deportations I initially wrote that "voluntary Aryanization" needs an explanation "to explain what sounds like, but probably wasn't, a benign process". The explanation in this makes it a lot more clear that the name was a euphemism and that the process wasn't benign. It does, however, read a little awkwardly to have the full explanation on the second mention, which is in a different section. Can we clarify at the first mention (in the 1938 deportations section) what "voluntary Aryanization" was, and then we can deal with its effects in this section?
 * Changed to "a precursor to the state-sponsored transfer of Jewish property (Aryanization)." I don't think we need to be explicit about the type of Aryanization.
 * Is there a reason you've capitalised "Slovak State", when that's not a proper name? Shouldn't it be "Slovak state" in the same way you refer to the "Czechoslovak state" or "Slovak government"?
 * It was (temporarily) the official name of the state; see First Slovak Republic. All of (First) Slovak Republic/Slovak state/Slovak State are used in reliable sources, but I stuck with the last one because it is the most common in the sources that I was using.

More to come shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Jewish Code
 * Full stop for the image caption as it's a full sentence. I'd also prefer to see a cite there (I'm not sure what the rules are on using citations for translations, but I think it would strengthen it against someone who may later query it
 * Per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, if there was a published translation, I would have cited it. The translation is my own work and verifiable to the headline on the image.
 * (See - I told you I didn't know what the rules are!) Given the guideline, that's OK then. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "denounced non-Jews perceived as sympathetic to them as "white Jews", engaging in antisemitic demonstrations on a daily basis" This reads as if the so-called "white Jews" were the ones taking part in the antisemitic demonstrations – I think it needs a little tweak to clarify.
 * Reworded


 * Planning
 * "In November 1941,[93]": I'm never a fan of citations immediately after just a few words. A citation should cover all the information in the text from the previous citation. In this case "November 1941" is meaningless without the text after the citation. Move it to the next one to cover both parts of information in two citations.
 * I realize that there are different opinions on this, but I tend to emphasize WP:text-source integrity in order to maximize verifiability. However, I did move the Hilberg citation to a later punctuation mark.
 * The 'Linda Reich' image caption needs a full stop.
 * Done

Done to the start of "Hiatus". More soon. This is well written and covers (from the point of someone with no detailed knowledge about the history) everything I would except to see in such an article. It's difficult to get through in places, but that's because the subject matter is appalling, not because of the prose. – SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Opposition
 * "Acting on behalf of the Vatican[204]": ditto my comment on the November 1941 citation
 * See above. Paulovicova is the only source which states this explicitly, so I think it is helpful to keep that close to the information.

Final comments...


 * Hiatus
 * Are there any further details of the attempt to bribe Himmler? I presume it didn't work as they "tried" to bribe him, but even a few words to say that it failed would stop me clicking on the link to look at another page.
 * Clarified


 * German invasion
 * "Nazi authorities were eager to murder Slovakia's remaining Jews before the Red Army advanced further into Poland; Auschwitz would shut down its gas chambers in November 1944" The two halves of this sit a little uncomfortably next to each other, with the meaning not totally clear (partly because I don't think you've clarified anywhere that Auschwitz is in Poland). I think I know what you're getting at, but it could be rephrased a little better.


 * Legacy
 * "The neo-Nazi[394]" Ditto on my earlier comments about refs after a few words
 * Because the Kotleba party is strongly associated with its founder, Marian Kotleba, it's particularly important for BLP to have a strong and verifiable citation for any contentious claims, such as the party being Neo Nazi.

That's it from me. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * I'll have a look soon, though I must admit I waited until someone else had commented because it is a bit of a daunting subject that I don't feel qualified to be the first reviewer of. But it certainly shouldn't be archived due to inactivity. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a good deal of WP:duplicate links htorughout, which can be highlighted with this script:
 * Fixed all except First Vienna Award, which is piped on the first mention and may be confusing otherwise.
 * A bit unfortunate one photo is only an external link. Perhaps we could find out when the photographer, Bedrich Fred Vohryzek, died, to see if it might be public domain?
 * Still alive in 1996 so it would still be copyrighted.
 * "Holokaust na Slovensku" I'm certainly no expert, but doesn't this refer to Slovenia?
 * It's the dative case of sk:Slovensko, "Slovakia". The names are very similar.
 * Oh, forgot to remove this point after I had looked it up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "had adopted Hungarian language" Link this and other languages?
 * I don't have a preference, but as I recall the languages were unlinked by previous reviewers who felt they were common
 * "Territorial losses to Hungary in 1938 and 1939" Probably good to state who suffered the losses in the caption.
 * Done
 * "The dispute was submitted to arbitration in Vienna by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Hungary was awarded much of southern Slovakia on 2 November 1938" Makes me wonder why Germany gave parts of Slovakia to Hungary, but later supported the Slovaks?
 * It's complicated and not a subject for this article; see First Vienna Award for more information.
 * "Between 5,000 and 6,000 Jews emigrated before 1940" But after when? "Before" seems pretty vague when no interval is mentioned. Also, did they move because of persecution?
 * Reason for the emigration is explained later on. I left the numbers in the background section for numbers purposes, and corrected the interval to 1938–1940 after checking the sources.
 * "Administrative regions of the Slovak State" You could state the interval in the caption, as is mention on the image itself.
 * Done
 * "Solution of the Jewish Question" Link something?
 * Redlinked since there's no article in any language.
 * "using antisemitic stereotypes" Link?
 * I don't think the Stereotypes of Jews page is very helpful here.
 * "to blame them for the Hungarian domination of Slovakia" What was the rationale behind this?
 * "because of Jews' alleged support for Hungary during the partition negotiations" I guess the above is related to this? Or was it more general than that?
 * As explained in the background section, many Slovak Jews spoke Hungarian and the national-conservatives suspected them of being pro-Hungarian as a result.
 * "were still permitted, and the Nazi German Party formed the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel militia" It is unclear from reading this article that those groups were formed by the local German minority, so you could state it here in parenthesis or similar for clarity?
 * Clarified—I hope
 * You are inconsistent in whether you link countries (I think all former countries should be linked in any case), and sometimes you link them at second rather than first mention.
 * I think I've now linked all the former countries on first mention.
 * "to "voluntary Aryanization"." Anything to link? I now see you link it further down, but links should be placed at first mention. Perhaps you could add a "main article" link under the section header there?
 * I linked the relevant section.
 * "through the Reich" Could be linked.
 * Reworded "through Nazi Germany"
 * "The total number of Slovak Jewish emigrants has been estimated at 5,000 to 6,000." What time interval?
 * I think it's clear from the context that this refers to the time between the 1938 deportations and when it became impossible to leave. I considered making it explicit, but that seemed redundant. Also, the sources are a bit vague about exactly what interval they refer to.
 * Thanks for your comments! <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "enriched by property stolen from Jews" Did they call it "stolen", though, and not "confiscate" or such? I realise it is effectively stealing, but the sentence is written as if reporting what they said themselves.
 * Changed to "confiscated", which better reflects the sources.
 * "acquired by Aryan-owned competitors" Were Slovaks considered "Aryan"? I thought it specifically excluded Slavs?
 * I removed "Aryan-owned" because it's not necessary in the sentence. (Nazi racial theories make no sense, but the Slovaks were German allies and therefore considered Aryan, more or less).
 * "Adolf Hitler (left) at a Wolf's Lair meeting" Links and date?
 * Done. Sadly there are no free images of the meeting discussed in text.
 * "Although the Ministry of Defense was pressured by the Ministry of the Interior to release the Jews for deportation in 1942, it refused" Why?
 * Added "possibly because the leadership wanted to avoid complicity in war crimes".
 * "The party's radical wing controlled the Hlinka Guard, whose leader, Alexander Mach, who was appointed interior minister in 1940 at German request" Is the "who" needed?
 * Removed
 * It seems a bit odd that the Holocaust memorial and Tiso's grave are presented side by side. But I guess it is necessary due to lack of space? Is the grave necessary?
 * The intention is to juxtapose different responses to the event within Slovak society.
 * "sealed within the framework of Operation Reinhard" Shouldn't such direct quotes be attributed in-text?
 * Done
 * "the Catholic Church issued a pastoral letter" The global Catholic Church or just locally?
 * Locally, clarified
 * "and the anti-Zionism which had followed the 1967 Six-Day War intensified" was this related to anti-Semitism as such or more with official Soviet policies which favoured some of the Socialist anti-western Arab states that went to war with Israel? And how was it expressed?
 * Basically. See article for expansion, although I don't want to go into too much detail on this point.
 * "Situation during the first days of the Slovak National Uprising" Give dates in caption?
 * Source does not state exact dates, only that it was at the beginning of the uprising.
 * "Over 1,000 Jews were at Sereď by 11 September" I think you could give the year here. 1944 is only mentioned in the preceding section by this point, so it is uncertain the reader would be aware.
 * Done
 * "Alois Brunner took over" Present him?
 * done
 * You mention Gisi Fleischmann multiple times, I think it might be notable to mention she also died in Auschwitz herself?
 * Done
 * I wonder why this image is kept both on Wikipedia and on Commons, unlike the other free images?
 * Actually, I just found out that this image is not PD in the US (although it is free in Slovakia and Germany. I started an import request for a series of similar images to dewiki and will delete once that's been completed. I've removed it from this article.
 * "In all, 211 mass graves with 5,304 victims shot by Axis forces" Here at the end of the article is the first time you link the Axis forces, should be linked at first mention.
 * Done
 * "and about 1,000[329] or 2,000 Romani people were killed" Any article about this to link to?
 * Not really, it was a very minor part of the Romani genocide and there's more detail in this article than that one, so I don't see the purpose of a link.
 * The Summary section does not seem to really be a summary, as it introduces new information? Is there a more inclusive title that could be used? It seems to be more about how people reacted to what happened during the events? Or maybe the info could be spread out in other parts of the article?
 * Integrated into earlier sections. Let me know if it is an improvement.
 * "returned from concentration camps and Hungary and 10,000 Jews" In Hungary?
 * Refers to Jews from 1939 borders who fled to Hungary versus those who lived in the annexed areas. Clarified this.
 * "After the conquest of Slovakia by the Red Army in 1945, it became part of the Third Czechoslovak Republic." Reads a bit awkwardly, as it may be unclear what "it" refers to. Maybe "after the Red Army's conquest of Slovakia in 1945, it became part of"?
 * Done
 * "(who had fled to Austria)" When?
 * Clarified
 * "A total of 68,000 to 71,000 Slovak Jews" I wonder if Slovak Jews shouldn't be linked earlier in the intro than the third paragraph?
 * done
 * "The Czechoslovak government, initially supportive of Zionism" Was that government dominated by Czechs?
 * Yes, but not exclusively and it governed Slovakia as well. This is a bit tangential so I'd rather not expand on it in this article.
 * "the ban was only removed after the 1989 Velvet Revolution" Not a big deal, but you don't use this name outside the intro, maybe best to be consistent.
 * Fixed this.
 * "The one-party" Only stated in intro.
 * Removed.
 * Support - I think it's a strong article, there wasn't much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto
While I read, can I ask that you go through this article and put the refs in numerical order? There seems to be a lot that are highest number first.  Cassianto Talk  21:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ordering of refs is not part of the Featured Article criteria; moreover, it's a moving target because refs are always moving around. I agree that it looks slightly better when they are all in numerical order but not enough to spend time going through the article and fixing it. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * What is the source for "File:Slovakia borderHungary.png"? "Own work" doesn't cut it any more than it would for text. Ultimately we need RSs to back what the map is saying - textual, maps or a mix. It may be that you need a separate cite for each of the five sections of the description.
 * Reliable source for Bratislava bridgehead:
 * This source should cover #2 (upn is the National Memory Institute (Slovakia))
 * See for #3
 * for #4
 * Excellent, now you need to cut and paste that to "Source" on File:Slovakia borderHungary.png.
 * Excellent, now you need to cut and paste that to "Source" on File:Slovakia borderHungary.png.


 * "File:Slovak Republic 1939 45 Administrative Map.png": Ditto.
 * Third map on this portal, published by the Slovak Ministry of the Environment
 * Ditto.
 * Done for both

The source cited for "File:Karte Slowakischer Nationalaufstand 1944 - Aufstandsbeginn.png" is the sort of thing needed. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of images lack alt text.
 * Added


 * "File:Antisemitic graffiti in Bratislava, c. 1941.jpg" I am doubtful re its copyright status. Yes, there is freedom of panorama, but that means that the photographer has sole copyright. That means that if you, say, had taken the photograph, you could abrogate your rights, but what makes you think that this actual image is PD?
 * See deletion request on Commons. If that is insufficient, I could query the administrator who closed the request as "keep".
 * Très amusant. No, it's fine.

An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "File:Ľudové noviny 1941.jpg" Could you add a US PD tag?
 * Done
 * Thanks for your comments, I think I've addressed everything. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. That'll do fine.

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Brigade Piron
I would like to add a couple of comments to the review, mostly on rather trivial issues. I wrote The Holocaust in Belgium and certainly defer to the author for having produced a much better article here!

My comments mostly relate to the lead - and I would refer to Manual of Style/Lead section. I would make the following points:
 * The first paragraph of the lead should establish a very potted history of the subject's most important aspects - as a non-expert, I would suggest that this means (i) a two-sentence summary of the article, (ii) a mention about Slovakia's status during the war, viz being a German puppet state (iii) a mention of the number of Jews in Slovakia before the war and the numbers actually killed. I think it must also make a very cursory reference (and link) to The Holocaust which is after all the main topic.
 * I think the "Background" section is entirely absent from the lead at present - one or two sentences would be helpful.
 * It might be worth thinking whether the infobox really adds anything to the article.

I would also make some more general observations:
 * I would suggest breaking up "Background" into at least two sub-sections - perhaps entitled something like "early history" and "Slovak independence" - for users on mobile devices, it is rather too big at present. It might be worth thinking about this in the context of some of the other sections too.

Just a few comments, then. Overall I think the article is very close to FA status! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed all your comments. Thank you! <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

 * Note, I intend to claim Wikicup points for this review.
 * Hradská, Katarína (2016). "Dislokácie Židov z Bratislavy na jeseň 1941" [The Displacement of Jews from Bratislava in Autumn 1941] is lacking publisher information.
 * Added
 * "Their multilingualism (many Jews spoke German, French, or Yiddish)" is sourced to (among others) Bauer 2002 p. 172. I have the paperback edition, but I checked the pages around just in case. Page 172 (and surrounding) is discussing specific examples of Jews in Slovakia - and is borderline supporting the information - it's not really discussing "many Jews" and only mentions German and Hungarian. It says "The meetings must have been held in German, possibly Hungarian, because those were the languages of the Jewish intelligentsia - Slovak was the "dialect" spoken by the peasants." This isn't a great source - I can't access the other two sources, but give that there is three sources listed - this one isn't really a good use of the source.
 * There are several sources for this because each one discusses different languages—removed because this is a less important point. Hutzelmann source specifically discusses multilingualism and the implications of this in that Jews were not seen as Slovak enough.
 * "and Jews were attacked in the streets; some were killed." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 175 and Rothkirchen 2001 p. 596. I have both. The Bauer ref does not really support "Jews were attacked in the streets; some were killed." because it is discussing Gisi Fleishmann's brother being killed - one specific case isn't actually supporting this phrase. The Rothkirchen 2001 p. 596 only supports the attacks on the streets and looting - there is nothing on that page that says that Slovak Jews were killed in the streets.
 * Removed
 * "neither the Slovak authorities nor the Jews in Slovakia knew about the Final Solution." is sourced to Bauer 1994 (which I don't have) and Bauer 2002 p. 177. In this case, Bauer 2002 does support the information.
 * Bauer 1994 p. 67: "At this stage, it is unlikely that the Slovak officials  knew of the fate that was awaiting the deportees." "After  the  war, the  charge was made that  the  UZ knew the  destination  of the  transports and did nothing to warn the Jewish  public. (70) (discusses details of accusations) "The  main point to remember, however, is that not even the Slovak leaders had  any definite knowledge in March, April,  or  perhaps  even May or June that all the Jews were indeed  destined  to die in Poland." (71). Removed citation to Bauer 2002.
 * "Members of the banned Zionist youth movements traveled around the country to warn Jews to hide or flee," is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 177. It mostly is supported, but it does not support the fact that the Zionist youth movements were banned.
 * Added reference to Bauer 1994, p. 70, which mentions "now-illegal Zionist youth movements"
 * "In mid-1941, the Germans demanded 20,000 men from Slovakia for forced labor.[137] Slovakia did not want to send gentile Slovaks or care for the families of deported Jews.[137]" First, we don't need the duplicated identical references here. This is sourced to Bauer 2002 pp. 176-177. Unfortunately, it's not supported by the source - Bauer says "The Slovaks could not fulfill their commitment to the Germans to supply them with a large number of Slovak laborers for Germany, so they suggested deporting 20,000 Jews instead. It immediately became clear to them, however, that deporting productive workers would leave them burdened with their families, and they therefore asked the Germans to accept the families as well." This isn't supported by the source - the number demanded by the Germans is not given nor is it stated that Slovakia did not want to send gentile Slovaks explicitly.
 * Supported by a different source: "On May 29,1940, the Slovaks signed an agreement according to which theGermans were  to  receive   120,000  Slovak  workers.  On  June   17,  1941, Moravek wrote a letter  to Tuka  in which he reported  on a discussion  he had had  with  Wisliceny  and  another  German  (Erich  Gebert,  an  economic "expert"), saying that he had offered  to the Germans Jews for labor in Poland or  Germany.7 In  the  late summer of  1941 the  Germans  demanded  20,000Slovak  workers,  and  Izidor  Koso, head  of Tiso's and Mach's  chancelleries,again  suggested  that  the  Germans  should  take Jews  instead  (see below). In the autumn Tiso and Tuka went to see Hitler  and Himmler, and Tuka asked Himmler  for help in taking the Jews out of Slovakia. There, too, the Slovaks learned  of German  plans to "liberate" Europe  from  its Jews—exactly how they  were not  told,  except  that  the Jews would somehow be "settled  in  the East."8 In October they agreed to have Jews with Slovak citizenship living in Germany deported  along with German Jews "to the East."9In January  1942 the  Slovaks said  they could  not  send  Slovak workers;10however, they again offered  20,000 Jewish  workers—to Sager,  the representative of the  German  Ministry  of Labor."


 * "Initially, most Jews believed that it was better to report for deportation rather than risk reprisals against their families." is sourced to Bauer 2002 pp. 177-178. But Bauer says "By and large, leaders and even youth groups and individuals in the communities refused to listen and decided that it was best to report to what they thought would be forced labor in order to avoid reprisals against their families." This is a bit more nuanced and I'm not sure it really supports "most Jews"
 * How about "many Jews"?
 * "Gisi Fleischmann, leader of the Working Group." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 178. This one is mostly supported, although we're losing some of the nuance in Bauer - who states "According to all the documentation we have ... it is clear that Fleishchmann headed the Working Group."
 * Yes, this article is written in summary style and does not include all details. If you prefer I can remove the image, but a caption is not the place for that information.
 * "in 2002, he revised the figure to 7,000." is supported by Bauer 2002 p. 178.
 * "Several thousand[j] Jews fled to Hungary, aided by Rabbi Shmuel Dovid Ungar and the youth movements, in early 1942." is also sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 178 - although it specifically mentions that the youth groups were Zionist and that "fair numbers of ordinary, unorganized people" joined the organized groups.
 * The only youth movements mentioned in the article (earlier in the same paragraph) are Zionist. Yes, it's missing some detail, the article is written in summary style.
 * "She was deported to Auschwitz and murdered in October 1944." is supported by Bauer 2002 p. 183, although Bauer states "No one knows how she was killed." so I think a better rendering would be "She was deported to Auschwitz in October 1944 and killed/murdered."
 * I just took this out because it overburdens the caption.
 * "Between 1,600[321] and 1,800[202][322] Jews were arrested, including most of the ÚŽ and Working Group leadership.[202][322][321]" First, footnote 202 is Bauer 2002 p. 183, which supports that the Working group was arrested, but does not mention 1800 anywhere, so the 202 on the 1800 number is wrong. I do not have access to the other sources used here.
 * Supported by the Fatran ref and also Fatran 1994, p. 192: "Some 1,800 Jews, including Working Group activists Oskar Neumann, Rabbi Frieder, Vojtech,  Winterstein,  and the treasurer,  Wili Fiirst, were  arrested". The Putík source is open-access.
 * "Polish Jews escape to Hungary via Slovakia. In late April 1944 two Auschwitz escapees, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, reached Slovakia." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 229. There is nothing on that page about the escape of Polish Jews to Hungary through Slovakia. It does, however, support the next sentence.
 * Sorry, that part was supported by the citations on the numbers. Since it wasn't clear, I moved one of the refs to the end of the sentence.
 * "The Working Group sent a report to Hungary and Switzerland." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 237 and is supported, but it leaves out some nuance in Bauer, which notes that the information reached the Working Group in late April but did not reach Hungary and Switzerland until early June.
 * "On 19 March 1944 Germany invaded Hungary, including Carpathian Ruthenia and the areas ceded by Slovakia in 1938." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 226. It supports the date and the invasion, but not the phrase starting "including..."
 * Hmm, that's a tricky one. Saying that Hungary was invaded sort of implies that all of the areas which were part of Hungary at that time were included. I did find a more explicit source and added it to the article.
 * "About 1,600[305] to 2,000[306] Jews fought as partisans"... the 305 ref is to Bauer 2002 p. 139, which does support the information given.
 * Wrong source, this should be Kubatova. Fixed
 * "In June, Ludin reported that popular opinion in Slovakia had turned against the deportations because gentile Slovaks saw the Hlinka Guard's violence against Jews." is cited to Rothkirchen 1998 p. 641 is supported by the source.
 * "German and Slovak propaganda blamed the Jews for the uprising," is also sourced to Rothkirchen 1998 p. 641. which is subtly different - Rothkirchen says "The fate of the remaining Jews was sealed in September 1944 following suppression of hte Slovak National Uprising. Jews were accused of acting as ringleaders. The deportations were renewed and carried out with great efficiency by the German army, aided by storm troopers of the Hlinka Guard."
 * OK, I have added two sources that explicitly mention "propaganda".
 * "was justified by the popular belief (reinforced by HSĽS propaganda) that Jews had obtained their wealth by oppressing Slovaks.[63][64][65]" 64 is Tonsmeyer 2007 p. 81. (63 is Legge 2018 pp. 226-227 and 65 is Lônčíková 2017 p. 85)... which is kinda supported by Tonsmeyer's "This is all the more important as some peopel in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia still believe rather that it was the Jews who had "acquired national property in an illegal manner. Therefore, these people view the expropriation of the Jews in the 1940s as a harsh but not necessarily unjustified measure."
 * The most direct support for this is Loncikova: Propaganda used and misused many stereotypes including the above mentioned notions of poor Jewish immigrants arriving from Galicia and becoming rich inn-keepers shortly after their arrival, stereotypes of Jews who allegedly abused Slovaks for their own personal profit... state propaganda emphasized a pre-supposed right of Slovaks to confiscate all Jewish properties The background also references the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks, which has multiple sources that could be cited. Kubátová and Láníček 2018 discuss the Jew "as exploiter" on pp. 26, 32–3, and 43–4. As "stereotype" more closely matches the sources than does "popular view", I edited accordingly.
 * "The deportees included young children, the elderly, and pregnant women." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which does support this information.
 * Perhaps you have a different edition? I am citing the pdf version (via JSTOR) which includes the quote "In November  1938,  a  month  into  Slovakian  autonomy,  the  government  de-cided to deport poor Jews and Jews without Czechoslovakian citizenship twenty  kilometers  into  territory  ceded  to  Hungary  as  a  reaction  to  the  result  of  the  First  Vienna  Arbitration.7  Altogether,  approximately  7,500  Jews  were  forcibly  transported from the country, including children, elderly, and pregnant women." on page 506. I'm happy to send you the pdf of this chapter if you like.
 * Reread what I wrote - "The deportees included young children, the elderly, and pregnant women." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which does support this information" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "For the most part, Holocaust relativism in Slovakia manifests as attempts to deflect the blame for it onto Germans and Jews rather than outright denial." is also sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which somewhat supports it - "Although I would argue that Holocaust denial does not occupy an important place in Slovak postwar historiography, relativization, including deflecting political responsibility for the Holocaust on others - either Germans or Jews - is a widespread and dangerous issue." which doesn't really suppor the "for the most part... "
 * OK, reworded and added source.
 * "Jews fought as partisans, ten percent of the total insurgent force." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 516 which does support this information.
 * "Before 1939, Slovakia had never been an independent country." is sourced to Deák 2015 p. 31 which does support the information.
 * "with the proviso that their confiscated property be passed to Slovakia." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 285 which does support the information.
 * "A letter sent 15 October 1941 indicates that plans were being made for the mass murder of Jews in the Lublin Reservation of the General Government to make room for deported Jews from Slovakia and Germany. It is possible that these plans contributed to the decision to build Sobibór extermination camp." is sourced to Longerich 2010 pp. 295, 428 - one quibble - the date of the letter is given on page 294. Also - pp. 294 and 295 do not tie this letter to the construction of Sobibor, and the content on p. 428 makes it clear that the possible connection to the construction of Sobibor is tied to an offer made on 20 October by Himmler to the Slovakian head of state: "There is also the offer that Himmler made to the Slovakian head of state on 20 October, to deport Slovakian Jews to a particularly remote area of the General Government, possibly as the basis for the construction of the second extermination camp at Sobibor." Longerich does NOT tie the letter of 15 October to Sobibor on any of these pages. While the sentence in our article says "these plans" ... it's still a bit of a leap, because the plans in the letter are not expressly tied to the plans of Himmler to the Slovakian head of state.
 * Removed.
 * "The original deportation plan, approved in February 1942, entailed the deportation of 7,000 women to Auschwitz and 13,000 men to Majdanek as forced laborers." is sourced to Longerich pp. 324-325, which does support the information.
 * "Transports went to Auschwitz after mid-June, where a minority of the victims were selected for labor and the remainder were killed in the gas chambers. This occurred for eight transports, the last of which arrived on 21 October 1942." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 326, which is supported by the source, but with a bit of nuance lost - Longerich says "By 21 October we are able to identify eight transports from Slovakia" ... which is historian speak for "we don't have all the records from Auschwitz so there might possibly be other transports" - Longerich sources this information to Czech's Kalendarium, which is reconstruction of the records, not a complete record of transports.
 * Right, other sources which claim to have complete listings have nine transports to Auschwitz between mid-June and late October. See List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia. Fixed.
 * "Between 25 March and 20 October 1942, about 58,000 Jews[188][182]" - where 182 is Longerich 2010 p. 326. (188 is Ward 2013 p. 235 which I do not have access to), but it does support the information.
 * "At the end of the deportations, between 18,000 and 25,000 Jews were still in Slovakia." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 404, which supports the information.
 * "SS officer Alois Brunner, who had organized the deportation of Jews from France and Greece," is sourced to Longerich 2010 pp. 391, 395, 403 which supports that Brunner was involved with the deportations, but our article implies that he was the only one in charge, which is not really the case - Longerich mentions other Germans involved in the deportations. And Longerich always calls him part of the RSHA, not as an SS officer.
 * Removed reference to SS officer, although that is potentially supported by other sources. Changed to "participated in the organization of transports of Jews from France and Greece"
 * "and about 1,000[340] or ... Romani" 340 here is Longerich 2010 p. 419 which has a subtly different emphasis - "...possibly as many as 1,000 people"
 * Fixed
 * Given the above, there are some problems that have shown up. I don't think they are intentional or malicious, but they are enough that I feel the need to suggest that a thorough audit of the sourcing is done. And .. therein lies the problem - just the above took me most of the morning and its barely scratched the surface. Doing a source audit is exhausting and very demanding work and it isn't exactly rewarding. But we need to get the sourcing right on such an article - there should be no ability for anyone to point to errors in sourcing.
 * I hate to recommend withdrawing the nomination, but I do not think a thorough source review is best done at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this, I really appreciate it. I think I've fixed all of the problems. It's worth mentioning that most of the sources that you checked are the ones which have been in the article longest and have the most opportunity for something to get changed along the way. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is... finding this many problems in the ones I checked (and I listed every citation I checked - noting when they did support the information) ... means that there are likely other issues lurking. Just fixing what I've brought up isn't the solution - the whole article needs to be checked against the sources. One or two small errors within this many checks would be "eh, it happens"... this many means that there has been a lot of slippage of sources around ... not saying it's anyone's fault, but that everything needs checking before the source review can be considered passed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What venue do you suggest? The article has already been through GA review and A-class review. Peer review is dead. I could of course go back and double check all 400 citations myself, but that's not really a source review. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started a page for matching each citation to a quote from the source: Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. If you think this would be helpful, I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination, otherwise, let me know what you think would be a good next step for this article. Thanks. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me answer on behalf of the coords: I think that given Ealdgyth's concerns and recommendation that all citations be checked, we do need to close this (and I'll treat it as a withdrawal) and work on that outside FAC. The page you've started seems a fair way to go about things but I'll leave to Ealdgyth to comment further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)