Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treblinka extermination camp/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC).

Treblinka extermination camp

 * Nominator(s): Poeticbent talk 14:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has just achieved good article status on October 24, 2013 through a long but immensely insightful review process and therefore I believe it's now in a good enough state to be considered as a Featured Article candidate. Treblinka is the core subject of the history of the Holocaust, and Poland in the 20th century as well, and thus deserves more focused attention and discussion, specified for FA. Poeticbent talk 14:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
Rather than update the status of my previous concerns, since it's been a little while, and there's been a lot of work done, I've collapsed what remains of that section, shuffled it off to Talk, and started anew as though this was a novel review. Unfortunately, I still must oppose promotion at this time. This article's closer, but it's not there yet. Unlike my prior reviews, I'm going to try to comment on prose issues as well, and will break this up by section:
 * Lead:
 * Not strictly actionable, but material cited in the article's body is not required to be cited in the lead. The idea is that the lead is purely a summary or abstract of the following article. Opinions seem mixed here at FAC about whether FA articles must or simply may take that approach; I prefer it, but I wouldn't oppose on those grounds alone.
 * Stats are controversial. Please consider it my personal quirk.
 * That said, I'm not sure the lead is the best summary of the article. There are terms introduced in the lead that aren't linked (extermination camp) or even used (Final Solution) in the body. The lead's treatment of the deaths at Treblinka I is more detailed than the corresponding section in the body, in terms of the reasons for the high death rate. Likewise, the Treblinka death toll figures in the lead are more a second section of debate about the actual numbers, rather than a summary of the section about the numbers; to wit, the two figures cited in the lead don't actually appear in that section of the body at all.
 * Done. Treblinka I section expanded.
 * I know the last bits of the lead are presented chronologically, but especially in a summary section, the transitions are jarring. We go from the creation of a monument and the acquisition of land ... to war crimes trials ... to a museum. Frankly, the lead is probably light on its summary of the Treblinka trials section in general.
 * Done.
 * Tall is a meaningless description here. How tall?  Although, frankly, that's the sort of thing you can save for the body; in the lead, as a summary, it can probably just be a monument.  Or a tower.  Or something like that that isn't subjectively described.
 * Done.


 * Background:
 * The background of other extermination camps is very hard to follow. The passage starts "Before Operation Reinhard..." without establishing any context for what that is (save following the link). Then it discusses mass execution pre-Wannsee, then the three Reinhold camps, then before Reinhard again (but after Wannsee), to discuss Chełmno; the transition from Chełmno to Majdanek and Auschwitz II-Birkenau makes it very hard to determine when they opened in relation to the article's topic camp.
 * Done. The paragraph rebuilt from scratch.
 * You give Chełmno's alternative name in parentheses, but it's not immediately obvious that's what "Kulmhof" is. You otherwise refer to it as Chełmno consistently; is there a need for the parenthetical, or can readers who are interested in what else that camp was called find the information in its own article?
 * Done. Kulmhof reformatted using lang template.
 * I know you're trying to avoid repeating "extermination camp" overmuch. I don't think that "killing facility" and especially "death factory" is the right way to do that.
 * Done.
 * Which "major cities"?
 * Done.
 * Who or what is Łopuszyński?
 * Done.
 * Did Treblinka, Masovian Voivodeship exist before the construction of the camp? Do sources mention much about the effects on the area residents of having this huge facility constructed there?
 * Found this, although several sections later... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. More can be seen at the actual village article.
 * Treblinka was "conveniently placed". I'm not sure that's quite the wording to use here, either. I assume there was an intentional decision to construct the camp between the two large ghettos, rather than just having it there by happenstance, which this could be read to imply. Do the sources support that? If so, perhaps say it outright.
 * Done.
 * Schoenbronn and Schmidt–Munstermann -- what were they? Other than "companies"? In fact, in the context, it's hard to be certain whether this means companies in the business or military sense.  Are they potentially significant enough for redlinks (or stubs, at least)?  Even just a quick descriptor (like "construction companies" ... if that's what they were, I don't actually know, personally) would help here.
 * These are just names of companies listed at the source. I know nothing about them.
 * Sturmbannführer is unlinked at first appearance. Shortly after, you do link SS-Sturmbannführer (which is a redirect to the former article).
 * Done.
 * If Theodor van Eupen was the commandant the entire time, is he notable enough to meet inclusion standards? Should he get a redlink?
 * Done. New article Theodor van Eupen written and DYKed.
 * You give the official title of Treblinka II as SS-Sonderkommando Treblinka. Was there a corresponding official title for Treblinka I?
 * It was Arbeitslager Treblinka. See photo of official announcement at Theodor van Eupen
 * Does Richard Thomalla have a title or anything? Without reading his article, he's just some guy who brought German-speaking prisoners to the camp.
 * Done. Added "head of construction, SS-Hauptsturmführer Richard Thomalla"
 * "This fence was later weaved..." I believe that should be "woven".
 * Actually, both "weaved" and "woven" are correct, but "woven" is more common. See these two links: Irregular Verbs and Conjugation of Weave. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the "new railway camp" part of Treblinka? I'm not sure from the text.  If not, does it have a name (or perhaps even an article)?  Or does it just mean the second part of the camp (that hasn't been mentioned yet)?
 * Done. Added "new railway ramp within Camp 2"
 * "...named Seidel Straße after the man who built it..." What does that mean?  Is the man's name known?
 * Done. Added Unterscharführer Kurt Seidel and more.
 * Consider linking roe deer. Also, it doesn't need to be hyphenated.
 * Done.
 * The list of rooms reads awkwardly. In part, that's because you're listing rooms by task, and then switch at the end to listing rooms by occupants.  When I first read the sentence, I parsed "female cleaning" as a thing (cleaning of females?) rather than "female" as a modifier to "cleaning and kitchen staff".  There's got to be a better way to write this that isn't a garden path sentence.
 * Done.
 * ..."almost resembled a retaining wall, although it was not." This is very wordy.  If something only resembles something else, it isn't actually that other thing, so the whole last clause is superfluous. I'm not sure that the "almost" is needed either.  Actually, this whole section is a mess, including the clause about Stangl drawing the wall while in police custody.  The wall looked like what the wall looked like.  If all we've got is his word for it, we can say that, but this doesn't read correctly at all.  Also, Stangl's named here as commandant, but earlier, we were told Theodor van Eupen was the camp's only commandant.
 * Ah, I see. Stangl was a Treblinka II commandant, and van Eupen was the only commandant of Treblinka I, right?  Or was Stangl (and others like Eberl) in charge of the whole thing, with van Eupen in a subsidiary role?  It took me all the way through the Operational command section to figure out some of this, and I still don't think I have a really comprehensive understanding of van Eupen's role (and he's not in that section, either). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, see also my note from above.
 * There are more branch-woven fences here, but this time you indicate who did the work. Is that the same as the branches used on the perimeter fence, a couple paragraphs above?
 * Done. Added more.
 * "It was cynically called Himmelstraße ("the Road to Heaven") by the SS, or der Schlauch ("the tube")." Hanging clause here, making it sound like the SS is "the tube".  This sentence needs rebuilt.
 * Done.
 * "...rails laid across the pits which were up to 30 metres long." Is that how long the rails were?  Or the pits?
 * Done.
 * The barracks for the upper camp workers was in the center section, behind the wall? That seems odd, but if that's what the sources say...  What is "work area" referring to here?
 * Done.


 * Killing process:
 * It might be self-evident, but I'll point out that here, nine paragraphs past the lead, is our first succinct definition of an extermination camp.
 * See above.
 * "Ober Majdan" You're usually styling German in italics.  Why is this different?  What does it mean?
 * Done. The meaning explained.
 * The Kommando Blau are mentioned here, but it's not until the next section that we have any idea who they are. Perhaps these sections are not in the right order?  I'm not sure, honestly.
 * Done. Added 'managing' the platform.
 * There appears to be an extraneous space between an end-of-sentence period and two reference tags here ([55][56] at the moment). Depending on your display, that can bump them down to the next line, where they are lonely.
 * Gone.
 * Further information tags are usually at the start of sections or subsections. I'm not sure if the MOS is firm on the topic, so I don't know if what you're doing here is actionable, but it looks weird to my eye.
 * See above. Section "Killing process" is about a lot more than Grossaktion Warsaw (1942). Only the adjacent paragraph is related to that.
 * Does Macedonia get a link? Was it Bulgarian-occupied?  It's hard to tell the way this list is presented.  Can the Serbian nature of Pirot, if that's important, be expressed in a way other than parenthetical adjective?
 * Done.
 * Did the fake infirmary have the Red Cross sign (as in the previous section) or a Red Cross flag (as here)? Regardless, do we need that detail twice?
 * Done.
 * The quote about the use of hair -- is there any reason this needs to be a direct quote (and one unattributed in the text, to boot)? This is just factual stuff with no opinions being expressed.  It seems that could be put in your own words.  That would also let us style U-boat without the single-quotes (although that's the sort of typographical change that our quoting policy typically tolerates anyway).  Also, that means you'd avoid linking out of a quote here, which is not prohibited, but certainly discouraged.
 * Done. Someone else put it in.
 * "The transports slowed down only in winter." Surely this is about the rate of transports arriving, not the rate at which their passengers were killed.  Doesn't this belong a couple paragraphs up?
 * Done.
 * Maybe it's my American English sense, but I might say that something was disassembled (if it was taken apart), or that it was removed from something else, but I wouldn't say it was "disassembled from" anything -- especially if it's still in one piece!
 * Done.
 * What's a T-4 expert?
 * Done.
 * We're reading about the gas chambers for well over half the section before the article actually explains that the cause of death here is carbon monoxide poisoning. Before that, it was always just "fumes".
 * Carbon monoxide is found in combustion fumes. Either way.
 * "After the suffocation ended and the doors of the gas chambers were opened, the bodies of victims did not lie on the ground, but were standing and kneeling due to the severe overcrowding, with dead mothers embracing the lifeless bodies of their children." I'm not sure quite what's wrong with that sentence, if it's structural or a tone concern, but it doesn't read quite right to me.
 * Done. Sonderkommando survivor added and i-linked.
 * Does the Katyn Commission have an article anywhere? Does it deserve a redlink?  Is there a way to introduce it without dropping its name in as a parenthetical aside?  I'm not, despite how this review reads, wholly anti-parentheses, but uses like this read to me as clunky, rather than compelling, prose.
 * Done. New article Katyn Commission created, linked and DYKed.
 * "The instructions to utilize rails came from Herbert Floß..." It isn't clear what this refers to.  Are these rails the grates in the next sentence?
 * Done.
 * Did Jankiel Wiernik write before he survived the uprising? If not, the "later" bit is in error.  Is there a direct quote worth using here, frankly?  While you're certainly not going to get anyone to argue that what he was describing was anything other than horrible, I'm still not comfortable describing things as "horrible" in the encyclopedia's voice.
 * Done.
 * "4 am till 6 pm" Times need non-breaking spaces.  Till seems rather informal here.
 * Done. Non-breaking spaces added.


 * Organization of the camp:
 * What is Wachmänner and does it need a link?
 * Done. Linked to Glossary of Nazi Germany
 * Where is Trawniki and does it need a link?
 * Done. Added 'camp' Trawniki; i-linked above.
 * "They were recruited of their own free will by Karl Streibel from the prisoner-of-war camps for the Soviet soldiers captured after the outbreak of war with the USSR." I haven't had time to spotcheck the sources here, especially since Citation 75 is popping a missing page number error, but I've got a concern here. To say these guards worked "of their own free will" is a pretty serious claim, and needs to be sources with appropriate measure; otherwise, there's a big difference between volunteerism and accepting the terms of the army that bailed you out of a POW camp. Given what task they were put to, that difference is significant.
 * Done. Page added. Motives elaborated on at sister article.
 * Are the color codes known for the three Sonderkommando squads whose color isn't inherent in their name?
 * Non-actionable. Sources speak of 3 colors only, that's it.
 * The last two sentences of the Sonderkommando paragraph don't seem to belong there at all.
 * Done.
 * "Members of all work commandos" -- members of work teams or squads or whatever, but I don't think you can be a "member" of a "commando".
 * Done.
 * "New labourers (only the strongest men) were selected" -- could this just say "Only the strongest men were selected"?
 * Done.
 * You mention the Tarnungskommando camouflaging fences with tree branches here. This is the third time this process is mentioned, and the second section where this work detail is specifically named as doing this.
 * Done.
 * "Showing up to work bloodied and bruised was synonymous with death." This seems unnecessarily poetic.
 * Please make a suggestion.
 * I've changed it to "Showing up to work bloodied and bruised would lead to execution". I was going to change it to "Showing up to work bloodied and bruised would lead to death", but that seemed, while less poetic, certainly just as dramatic. Even "would lead to execution" seems a tad dramatic, but I think it's the best we can do. Let me know what you think. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent.


 * Treblinka prisoner uprising:
 * "The revolt at Treblinka was preceded by a long period of secret preparations." That's the first sentence in this section. At this point, the reader only knows there was a revolt because it's mentioned in the lead. It's okay to start with a background here, but the order that facts are presented needs work.  Subsections might help.
 * Done. New introductory sentence added with citation.
 * What "combat unit"?
 * Done.
 * You mention Chorążycki's suicide, then his organizing committee.
 * Done. Switched.
 * The plan was delayed because a captured rebel threw a grenade. But this paragraph says it was delayed by "a change in circumstances", then talks about the background of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, then tells us about the grenade, without ever making it explicit that the grenade was the "change in circumstances" in question. The flow of this series of sentences needs reworked.
 * Fixed. All these factors are inextricably linked.
 * If gassing didn't occur on Mondays, why don't we hear about that in the section on the gas chamber process?
 * It matters here.
 * "silently unlocked" -- do sources say how?
 * Done. Sure. Please tell, what specifically would you like to see?
 * You have p.m. with periods here, but pm with no periods earlier in the article. Needs to have a consistent style.
 * Done.
 * A "tank of petrol" is not a building, but that's how the sentence reads.
 * Done.
 * Do we need to call the German guards well-trained? Can we word this sentence without the parentheticals?  Perhaps "fire from about 25 German guards and around 60 Ukrainian Trawnikis"?
 * Done.
 * You discuss survivors, then revolts at other camps, then back to survivors in the next paragraph.
 * Done. Switched.
 * One paragraph says 70 Jews survived, the next says 150?
 * Done.
 * Who is Wirth? He's not linked or introduced by full name until the next section.
 * Done. Links switched with proper intro.
 * Who is Globocnik? His full name is given later than this mention of him, although it's never not very clear who he is until the next section.
 * Done, per above.
 * Link Lublin?
 * Done.
 * The dismantling and destruction of the camp is fairly important. Should this have a section of its own?
 * Non-actionable I suppose. Just one paragraph for now.
 * "Lazaret" is capitalized in the caption, but not in its earlier prose mention.
 * Done.


 * Organizational command:
 * I'm really not happy with the order of these sections, as I'm sure you've already noticed by this point.
 * Non-actionable... but we're getting there, see below.
 * I'm also not sure what this section is about. By the name, I'd expect it to be about the people in charge of the camp, and the military command structure. But there's a lot of information here about deportation rates. Oh, and the information about the camp's effects on the local population that I couldn't find earlier!
 * Done. The whole section rebuilt.
 * Hans Hingst has his rank styled in English, but you've used German rank titles elsewhere.
 * Done.
 * My earlier comment about Further information hatnotes aside, is this where it makes sense to hatnote the timeline?
 * Done. Made into an i-link.
 * "He was reportedly sent back to Berlin, closer to operational headquarters in the Hitler's Chancellery, where the main architect of the Holocaust, Heinrich Himmler, has just embarked on stepping up the pace of the program." This needs to be split up or rewritten somehow.  Also, tense change at the end.
 * Done. Tense changed.
 * "clean up Eberl's mess" -- this phrase seems rather informal, especially in the circumstances.
 * Done.
 * Seidel Street was in German the last time it was mentioned.
 * Done.
 * Do we know what the greeting announcement was?
 * When did Stangl leave? Why?
 * Done.
 * Franz's dismantling of the camp is given short shrift here. In general, as I think I commented earlier, that's a step of the timeline that seems largely glossed-over here.
 * Done.
 * Why is the Treblinka song in this section? It seems like it belongs in a discussion of the experiences of the Sonderkommando.
 * Relevant because of how it came about I suppose.
 * "...as though the deaths at the camp were a joyful process rather than one of mourning." I don't think mourning is the right word here.
 * Replaced with bereavement.
 * If sources provide the lyrics in German, that's the sort of thing that would be nice to have in a footnote.
 * There's footage of Franz Suchomel singing it in German on Youtube from the 1985 Holocaust documentary Shoah: Treblinka Song - Franz Suchomel. Unfortunately, there's no transcript...AmericanLemming (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found a copy of the lyrics in German, but I have some doubts regarding the reliability of the source: [Aktion Reinhard Songs and Music. And even though some things can be translated differently, it seems that this site's song is significantly different from the one given in the source currently in the article. Suchomol probably gave a slightly different rendition of the song each time he was asked to sing it. [[User:AmericanLemming|AmericanLemming]] (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a copy of the lyrics in German from an archive of a review of the 1985 Holocaust documentary Shoah in the respected German news magazine Der Spiegel. It's probably more reliable than the source above. German Lyrics Der Spiegel AmericanLemming (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I have now added the lyrics in German in a footnote with a citation to the Spiegel article. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Death count:
 * Maybe this is an American language problem again, but use of the word wagon is strange here to me. Is that used here to mean train car?
 * Changed to enclosed freight cars.
 * What are the AK communiqués?
 * Done. New note added.
 * "Its purpose as a secret guard post was confirmed by Globocnik..." -- We haven't heard about any such purpose, so this transition is jarring. For that matter, what was it secretly guarding?
 * Done.


 * After the war:
 * Clearly, they didn't destroy "all evidence of genocide" even if that's what they tried to do.
 * Done.
 * I don't think the aside about the Black Road's name is needed, at least not in that form. Others may disagree with me here, though.  Maybe call it the "so-called" Black Road, or something like that.  Not sure.
 * Done.
 * Franciszek Duszeńko do anything else to earn a redlink?
 * Done. New article Franciszek Duszeńko created, i-linked and DYK-ed.
 * Link Zenon Kliszko?
 * Done.
 * Link Marshal to Marshal of the Sejm?
 * Done.
 * The camp location had a custodian since 1960? We only hear about that after the fact.  When was that established? By whom?  Who was he?
 * In 1960 the house was built on site for custodian Kiryluk from nearby Wólka Okrąglik. That's all we know.
 * Anything more about the archaeological study?
 * Done.
 * There's really very little here about efforts to reconstruct what actually happened at Treblinka. In the postwar years, this was a big deal in Western Europe. I don't see any mention of Steiner's 1966 work on Treblinka or the public debate that caused in France.
 * Non-actionable. New article about Treblinka historiography would probably be needed for the many books listed among our 'References', including Steiner; I didn't read it. Here's a review.


 * Treblinka trials:
 * Is that an official name? The target article isn't even sure if it should be Treblinka Trials (that's the article title) or Treblinka trials (as it is in the lead there).
 * Done.
 * "the United States and the Soviet Union had lost interest in prosecuting German war crimes with the onset of the Cold War" -- that claim needs a direct citation and perhaps attribution, as it is potentially incendiary (even if true)
 * Done. A direct citation.
 * SS isn't italicized here, as it often was previously. I haven't been paying close attention to if this is consistent throughout, but it needs to be.
 * Done.
 * By now, we should already know Stangl's position.
 * Done. Few things added.
 * I think you can cut "of men, women, and children" as redundant.
 * Done.
 * The material gain section feels out of place here. Perhaps discuss this in the section about the camp's leadership?
 * Discussed already. The stealing has only been made public at trials.
 * Globocnik's tally is, by my reading, the amount of valuables the camp had acquired from its victims at the time, not the amount anyone ran off with, but its position in the middle of the paragraph doesn't make that immediately obvious.
 * Done.


 * Individuals responsible:
 * I wonder if this sort of thing would be better as a standalone list article with a Further information link, but that's personal preference, I think.
 * Non-actionable. Needed as our index of names, ranks, etc.
 * Are the names in any order in each section?
 * Done. See below.
 * Ranks are sometimes given English translations but not always. Consider either doing it all the time, never, or on first appearance of each rank, but set a standard regardless.
 * Done. Arranged per ranks, higher to lower, and within each rank the names are in alphabetical order.
 * Super-nitpick of the day: the references for Erwin Lambert in the table are not in numerical order.
 * Done.
 * Kurt Franz doesn't get dates served in the table?
 * Done.
 * Theodor van Eupen isn't in the table at all?
 * Done. Moved up.
 * Josef Hirtreiter's description as "unloading ramp terror" is not NPOV.
 * Done. Article created, i-linked and DYKed. Josef Hirtreiter was sentenced to life for smashing children's heads against the walls of boxcars at the unloading ramp. Just facts.
 * What is the Waldkommando?
 * Done.
 * "command of Ukrainian twelve guard unit" -- this does not make sense to me as written
 * Done.
 * Our article on Ivan the Terrible says he was named Ivan Marchenko; should the table reflect that? Should his presumptive ethnicity be in the notes rather than with his rank?
 * Done. I-link piped.


 * Notes:
 * Hirtreiter's trial is covered in the other article, yes, but probably deserves more mention here than being buried in a footnote.
 * Done.
 * Footnote F: I can't see this, because there's no direct citation to it here.
 * Done.


 * [Mostly skipping the Citations list, at least for now]
 * In general, I'm not fond of how much "extra" stuff (quotes, explanatory text, etc.) you have in the citations and references. The MOS allows for it, I suppose, so it's not actionable. But I don't have to like it.
 * Fair enough.
 * You sometimes, but don't always, give accessdates for print references you access online. Unlike purely web sources, those aren't strictly required (and I don't like them, personally); the idea is that while a web resource may change over time, a print source cannot (nor should a faithful online reproduction of a print source).
 * Google Books often include separate dates for when a print source was digitized, so the occasional access date can't hurt either I guess.


 * References:
 * The Court of Assizes reference has a comma after the date instead of a parenthesis. I'm not sure this reference is entirely correctly cited, either, but I'll pass over that for now.
 * Done. Reformatted as "sfn"
 * Donat doesn't need a page number here, because you provide that in the corresponding Citation. And you've got an ISBN, so don't need an LOC; one ID is sufficient.
 * Done.
 * Grossman could use an OCLC if available.
 * Done.
 * Lanzmann needs an ISBN.
 * Done.
 * Does Rückerl have an ISBN? Or an OCLC, that failing? Also, this is especially the sort of excerpt buried in the references that seems germane to the article.
 * Done. New "sfn" created.
 * I just noticed that you're not consistent about publication locations. They're entirely optional, but you've either got to always use 'em or always lose 'em.
 * Is choosing required? Some might be interesting I think.
 * ISBN for Snyder?
 * Done.
 * I still think that, in general, this article is overly reliant on fairly "soft" resources like the Diapositive and museum websites. I know the article relies heavily on Dam im imie̜ na wieki (Iz 56,5) also, but I'm having a hard time finding anything that discusses how well that work was received or whether it's thought to be a reliable historical analysis (or anything about the reputation of Edward Kopówka as a historian), but that may be localization bias.
 * Done. New article about Dr. Edward Kopówka created; his book hailed as an encyclopedia. Check it out.

Calling this here for the night. I may try to get back to this review and finish out later. Regardless, I really can't support on prose grounds right now. The military history project does an excellent job with copyediting. If this article fails FAC (which I believe it will, and should), you may want to submit it to their A-Class process before coming back here. They're good at this sort of thing, and I'm very much not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And with that, I'm going to consider myself done with this review. This article still requires, if nothing else, yet another comprehensive copy edit.  I suspect it's going to need some section-level formatting adjustment, too. And I've declined to give the bulk of the citations another round of scrutiny. I'm very sorry, because I know a lot of work has gone into this, and continues to do so, but with the amount of corrections needed here (more than I really should highlight in a FAC, to be honest), I'm just not going to be able to support promotion.  I hope to see it go through a more formal peer review, and perhaps the MILHIST A-Class assessment; I look forward to seeing it again in future in a manner that would permit me to support it here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a bit confused. With the amount of effort you put into this review I would assume you don't want it, to be in vain. This is a collaborative project. There is no silver bullet to improving the article. No MILHIST organizational headquarters exist to come to the rescue unless you mean specific team members willing to help just like you. Meanwhile, other FAC reviewers help in mainspace because often it is easier to fix things rather than to elaborate on it. My main point is, once you declare your unwillingness to support promotion and to chip in with the editing, why bother wasting time adding the missing commas to your rationale? There's no need for that. Poeticbent talk  22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because I oppose an article's promotion at FAC doesn't mean I don't want that article to be a FA; on the contrary, I want every article to be a FA, but they have to meet the criteria to do so. I don't think this does, and I think there are pretty substantive changes needed for it to do so. As a result, I think this article should fail this FA candidacy, receive the improvements it needs, consider going through a (slightly) less rigorous appraisal like the MILHIST A-Class review, and come back here as a better article more in line with the FA criteria so that it can pass. I hope that provides some insight. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm adding my check marks as I re-read the article. I also appreciate the effort you put into your review. Your comments are very well written. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 00:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also would like to thank you for your detailed and critical review. I would list more suggestions for improving the article myself, but I'm way too familiar with the article to offer any more critical commentary on it at this point. AmericanLemming (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your review Squeamish Ossifrage has become quite a DYK generator. Josef Hirtreiter, Paul Bredow, Willi Mentz, Max Möller (SS officer), Theodor van Eupen, Katyn Commission, Franciszek Duszeńko, Edward Kopówka are new, not to mention, numerous serious improvements to already existing articles and notable new ones featured at WP:DYKSTATS. — I have addressed every comment of yours often with great care, going beyond of what might have been expected of me. Sorry it took so long, but your semi-professional review required a great deal of attention. We're going to end up with something to be proud of, better than anything I've seen out there. That's good. Thanks again, Poeticbent talk  08:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria

 * Several of the captions need editing for grammar
 * File:3rd_SS_Division_Logo.svg is sourced to File:SS_Division_Totenkopf.png, which is missing a source


 * File:Treblinka_II_aerial_photo_(1944).jpg: when/where was this first published?


 * File:Treblinka_Cremation_Pit.jpg: how do we know that this corporation has authorized that licensing?


 * File:Treblinka_graph_pt_1.png: data source(s)?


 * File:Treblinkagrave.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John
Oppose on prose, based on a preliminary reading of the article. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead
 * Is "murdered" the right term to use? I don't mean, is it justified, but is it the best, most encyclopedic and dispassionate term to use on this article's lead?
 * Killed? --John (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize I'm late to this discussion, but my understanding is that the camp's surviving command staff, like Stangl and Franz, were later charged and convicted of hundreds of thousands of counts of murder. (See for example and ) The secondary sources I reviewed while composing the Auschwitz article, both popular and scholarly, routinely referred to the killings as murders. "Murdered" is the correct, dispassionate term for a deliberate and unlawful killing (which both courts and common conscience find this to be), and I'd argue against removing it; "killed" isn't wrong, but it is less precise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize I'm late to this discussion, but my understanding is that the camp's surviving command staff, like Stangl and Franz, were later charged and convicted of hundreds of thousands of counts of murder. (See for example and ) The secondary sources I reviewed while composing the Auschwitz article, both popular and scholarly, routinely referred to the killings as murders. "Murdered" is the correct, dispassionate term for a deliberate and unlawful killing (which both courts and common conscience find this to be), and I'd argue against removing it; "killed" isn't wrong, but it is less precise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize I'm late to this discussion, but my understanding is that the camp's surviving command staff, like Stangl and Franz, were later charged and convicted of hundreds of thousands of counts of murder. (See for example and ) The secondary sources I reviewed while composing the Auschwitz article, both popular and scholarly, routinely referred to the killings as murders. "Murdered" is the correct, dispassionate term for a deliberate and unlawful killing (which both courts and common conscience find this to be), and I'd argue against removing it; "killed" isn't wrong, but it is less precise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Likewise for "death factory".
 * It was an extermination camp. Right? So call it that. Or camp for short. This is an example of purple prose that makes me fear to continue a detailed review of the whole article if it is all written like the lead. --John (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to be overly concerned. I stand by the overall quality of the article's prose, having copy-edited it both during the GA review and during the FAC, as well as making 325 edits to the article myself. I admit that there might be some remaining issues here and there, but by and large the article is an objective account of what happened written in plain English. It isn't sensationalist, nor does it push any one POV. In my opinion, PoeticBent has done an excellent job improving the article. Rather than bemoaning the word choice in general, I think it would be much more constructive for you to point out specific examples of what you consider to be in need of improvement. I appreciate your willingness to review the article critically, but I also don't think the prose is as bad as you make it out to be. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to be overly concerned. I stand by the overall quality of the article's prose, having copy-edited it both during the GA review and during the FAC, as well as making 325 edits to the article myself. I admit that there might be some remaining issues here and there, but by and large the article is an objective account of what happened written in plain English. It isn't sensationalist, nor does it push any one POV. In my opinion, PoeticBent has done an excellent job improving the article. Rather than bemoaning the word choice in general, I think it would be much more constructive for you to point out specific examples of what you consider to be in need of improvement. I appreciate your willingness to review the article critically, but I also don't think the prose is as bad as you make it out to be. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "A towering monument..." These three seem to be pushing NPOV for the lead of an article on such a sensitive topic. It's important to set a really neutral, dispassionate tone in the lead, and let the facts and the quotes stand for themselves.


 * The overall structure of the first paragraph of the lead is tortuous. It needs, in my opinion, to be rewritten. The casualty estimates should be presented as a simple range. It should be sufficient to cite the range in the body, without doing so here in the lead.
 * That's a fair request. It really needs a complete rewrite, both for NPOV and for flow. --John (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fair request. It really needs a complete rewrite, both for NPOV and for flow. --John (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Background
 * "killing centre at Chełmno"? Are we in the realm of elegant variation here? --John (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources
 * The Daily Mirror is being used as a source. Is this the best source that can be found for the material it references? --John (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Engvar

Are we in American or British English here? I see examples of both. --John (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe we're in British English. When I copy-edited the article for GA status, it seemed that it was more British English than American English, so I tried to change all the spelling to British English and all of the date formats into DMY. However, seeing as I'm not terribly familiar with British English, some dates may not be formatted correctly. Sometime this week I'll look up some of the stylistic variations, particularly with regard to date formatting, and see if I can't fix the inconsistencies. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reread the article and found 13 instances of American spelling and/or vocabulary, which I have now fixed. Should you happen to find any more examples, feel free to point them out or fix them yourself, whichever you should prefer. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from AmericanLemming
It seems that this FAC has stalled somewhat, so I'd thought I'd offer some input of my own. Note that these comments are unresolved issues from my copyedit of this article for GA status; they were (rightly) deemed too picky for a GA review and thus left alone. Anyway, here we are at FAC and it seems that they might be appropriate in this situation. This is only the second time I've contributed at FAC, so I don't know whether or not addressing my concerns is necessary to fulfill the FA criteria; what I do know is that addressing them would make the article better.

Anyway, these comments are meant to give the nominator some ideas on how to further improve the article while the other reviewers get around to finishing their review of the article's prose. I will continue to watch this review page and the article itself. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll admit, I did just copy these comments from the GA review. Anyway, I'll reread the article tomorrow and see which comments are still applicable and if I have any new ones. I've got an organic chemistry midterm tomorrow morning, so I won't be able to get back to you until tomorrow afternoon, roughly 24 hours from this timestamp. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've now reread the article and copy-edited it again (as you can see by looking at the article's history). Additionally, I've collapsed most of my remaining GA comments, as they were either addressed or non-actionable. I apologize for not following the GA review quite as closely as I should have before posting these recommendations at FAC; I got rather busy with my studies. Anyway, the good news is you don't very many issues left from the GA review to address. The bad news is I found a few more issues during my latest copy-edit. Again, I don't know if addressing my concerns is necessary for FA status, but I do think taking them into consideration would further improve the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Recommendations left over from GA Review

First third
 * "A widely feared overseer was Untersturmführer Franz Schwarz" I know it originally said "another widely feared overseer", implying that Eupen was a feared overseer. I don't opposed the original wording so long as you explain why Eupen was a feared overseer.


 * "Additionally, trees were cut and the perimeter adjusted to fit the killing process" How was the perimeter adjusted to fit the killing process? I know you talk about it later, but this sentence leaves the uniformed reader (like me) rather confused for a while.
 * Well, I've looked at it again, and I still stand by this comment. Perhaps you could say something like "trees were cut and the perimeter enlarged to increase the size of the camp and facilitate a higher volume of victims" or something to that effect. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've looked at it again, and I still stand by this comment. Perhaps you could say something like "trees were cut and the perimeter enlarged to increase the size of the camp and facilitate a higher volume of victims" or something to that effect. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "associated with the mass burial of corpses only in 1943, when the Polish victims of the Soviet Katyn massacre" When in 1943 was the Katyn massacre unearthed?


 * "Therefore, the orders to exhume corpses already buried at Treblinka and burn them instead came directly from the Nazi leadership." The mid-level Nazi leadership? The high-level Nazi leadership? Who exactly gave the orders?

Killing process
 * "This killing process differed significantly from the method used at Auschwitz and Majdanek, where the poisonous gas Zyklon B was utilized." Any reason why Treblinka used carbon monoxide and not Zyklon B?

Organization of the camp Treblinka prisoner uprising As a general comment, the first two paragraphs of "Treblinka prisoner uprising" are in need of much improvement. I think it's got all the necessary information; it's just not presented in a particularly coherent matter. As a second general comment, if they killed off all of the Sonderkommandos every few days, how did Lejcher managed to stick around for three months and plan the uprising?
 * "Their big triangles made it impossible for new arrivals to blend in" The big triangles of the Desinfektionskommandos? Also, how would have new arrivals been able to blend in anyway, even without the big triangles?
 * "sorted the belongings of victims who had been already "processed"" Obviously "processed" means "killed", but it might be unclear to some readers.
 * " who separated quality items" Do you mean that they separated the high quality items from the low quality items?
 * "The Camp 1 Wohnlager residential compound contained barracks for 700 Sonderkommandos, bringing their grand total to roughly one thousand at any given time" This sentence confuses me. Are you trying to say that the barracks was severely overcrowded?
 * "There was a bruise rule in effect" Put in place by the camp leadership, I suppose? Was it a formal rule or just a habitual practice of the guards?
 * "he would be called "clepsydra" (water clock) in the camp language" Why "water clock"? And what was the "camp language"? German? Yiddish? Hebrew? And who would call him "water clock"? The guards or the other prisoners?
 * "He launched the uprising on a hot summer day when a group of Germans and some forty Ukrainians drove off to the Bug River for a swim.[79] He was remembered differently by survivors as either Dr. Lecher [sic],[77] or Dr. Leichert.[81] Lajcher was killed in the revolt." I suggest moving the first and the third sentences into the next paragraph; I think they fit better there.
 * "the door to the arsenal near the train tracks was silently unlocked" Do we know who unlocked the door? If we don't, I think it's worth mentioning that.
 * "They splashed gasoline in some buildings" Did they splash gasoline in or on the buildings? I think you want "on" here.


 * "Chorążycki committed suicide on April 19 when faced with imminent capture" So if the Germans figured out that there was a plot, why didn't they kill everyone else who they thought was involved, too?
 * But if Chorążycki committed suicide on April 19 and the uprising took place on August 2, how can you say Lacher launched the uprising immediately? The uprising took place slightly over two months after Chorążycki committed suicide. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, my three last remaining issues with this section are somewhat related, I think.
 * 1. Since the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising lasted from 19 April 1943 until 16 May 1943, why did that postpone the 15 June 1943 uprising? Did it take the Germans that long to round up the surviving members of the resistance and send them to Treblinka? Our Wikipedia article on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising says "sporadic resistance continued and the last skirmish took place on 5 June 1943 between Germans and a holdout group of armed Jews without connections to the resistance organizations".
 * 2. Also, Chorążycki committed suicide the same day that the uprising began. I think that's worth noting.
 * 3. Thirdly, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article also says "On 19 April 1943, the first day of the most significant period of the resistance, 7,000 Jews were transported from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka extermination camp,[49] where, purportedly, they developed again into resistance groups, and then helped to plan and execute the revolt and mass escape of 2 August 1943." Do you have any source to confirm the second half of the sentence? (starting with "purportedly...)? It may be unverifiable. Anyway, what do you think about adding the ""On 19 April 1943, 7,000 Jews were transported from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka extermination camp" part to this section? It seems to be backed up by a reliable citation.
 * Are you still researching the causes of the uprising, or have you found everything about it you can in the sources you have? AmericanLemming (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you still researching the causes of the uprising, or have you found everything about it you can in the sources you have? AmericanLemming (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Operational command
 * "It was evident that large-scale killings were happening nearby, which caused panic among the villagers." Did they think they were going to be killed too?
 * Just add a inline citation to Kopówka & Rytel-Andrianik after "who were afraid of being executed if they were caught near the train tracks", and then I'll consider this comment addressed. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just add a inline citation to Kopówka & Rytel-Andrianik after "who were afraid of being executed if they were caught near the train tracks", and then I'll consider this comment addressed. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Christian Wirth was assigned to move into Treblinka" Did he then stay there for an extended period of time?
 * "Stangl had a reputation as a competent administrator with a good understanding of the project's objectives" I suppose the project's objectives were to kill all the Jews?
 * "Stangl wanted his camp to look attractive, so he ordered the paths paved and flowers planted along the sides of Seidel Street, near camp headquarters and SS living quarters" Was Seidel Street near camp headquarters and SS living quarters, or were they three separate places where paths were paved and flowers were planted?


 * "Stangl accepted the extermination of the Jews as a fact" A fact as in it was happening or that it had to happen?
 * "(actually, prisoner Walter Hirsch wrote them for him)." I assume he did so under no little duress? That is, he was forced to?
 * Well, if we have a source that says he was trying to improve his own chances of survival, then we should add that to the article. If we don't, then I'll consider this point non-actionable. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we have a source that says he was trying to improve his own chances of survival, then we should add that to the article. If we don't, then I'll consider this point non-actionable. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Death count After the war
 * "The last rail transport of Jews destined for death" I understand where this is coming from, but "destined for death" seems a little dramatic for a Wikipedia article. I can't think of any suitable replacements off the top of my head, but there's got to be some.
 * "The new Soviet-installed government failed in its duty to preserve evidence of the crime" I think you mean moral duty, not legal duty, right? It might be more NPOV if you just take the "failed in its duty" part out. Then again, I haven't been around Wikipedia that long, so maybe not. How about "failed to preserve evidence of the crime"?
 * "The scene has not been legally protected" Even to this very day? Otherwise, "the scene was not legally protected until..." would be more appropriate.
 * "No funds were allocated for it by the Stalinist officials" Did they not allocate any funds to the design competition or the memorial? Neither?

"the collapse of the Soviet empire" I understand many Poles have hard feelings toward the Soviet Union, but in the interest of NPOV it might be best to stick with "Soviet Union".
 * "No funds were allocated for it by the Stalinist officials. The committee disbanded in 1948. Many survivors left the country. In 1949 the town of Sokołów Podlaski took it upon itself to protect the camp with the new fence and a proper gate. A work crew was sent in to beautify the grounds with no archeological insight." I think all of these short, choppy sentences could be combined so that they're more coherent.
 * "The exhibition house opened in 2006 following the collapse of the Soviet empire" The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so why did the exhibition house open so much later?

Treblinka trials and footnotes
 * " Twenty years after the war ended, eleven former SS camp personnel were brought to trial by West Germany, including commandant Kurt Franz." Any reason it took them so long to have the trial?
 * (Wiesenthal Center)


 * "Gustav Munzberger from Gas Chambers received 12 years, Franz Suchomel (Gold and Money) 7 years, Otto Stadie (Operation) 6 years, Erwin Lambert (Gas Chambers) 4 years, Albert Rum (Totenlager) 3 years. Otto Horn (Corpse Detail) was acquitted and set free" I understand that German capitalizes all nouns (I'm a German major, for crying out loud. I should know that.) However, generally nouns are not capitalized in English. Any reason why they're capitalized here?


 * "but Austria did not issue a warrant for Stangl's arrest until 1961." Any reason why it took them so long?


 * Footnotes: Make sure that all access dates are all DMY (4 July 2013) and not MDY (July 4, 2013)! I think some of them are and some of them aren't.

New FAC Comments

Lead Background
 * "The new exhibition centre located at the camp opened in 2006 after the collapse of the Soviet empire" I still think "Soviet Union" is more NPOV than "Soviet empire".
 * "Majdanek and Auschwitz": when did they begin operating?
 * "near the Małkinia Górna railway junction connecting major cities with Łopuszyński's gravel mine located 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) from the Treblinka town railroad station" So the railway junction connects major cities OR major cities to the gravel mine OR major cities to Treblinka? I'm sorry, but this sentence leaves me very confused...
 * "Treblinka I operated from June 1941 until 23 July 1944" Sso we don’t know exactly when in June 1941 it started operating?
 * "The entire camp, which was either 17 hectares (42 acres)[38] or 13.5 hectares (33 acres) in size (sources vary):" The entire camp, as in all of Treblinka II, or the entire camp, as in all of Treblinka I and II?
 * "the main road within the campgrounds" I understand what you're getting at here, but when I hear the word "campgrounds" I think of a place where people go on the weekend to have fun with family and friends and enjoy nature. I don't think that's the connotation you want to come across here...
 * "All buildings contained the clothing and belongings of prisoners?" So does that include the undressing barracks, then?
 * "Mentz single-handedly executed thousands of Jews in there" So was the open-excavation trench inside the small barracks?
 * "The same trench was also used to burn loads of identity papers deposited by new arrivals" The new arrivals didn't hand over their identity papers there, they did so at the fake train station, right?

Killing process You mention Stangl by his last name only without linking his name, even though this is the first time he's mentioned in the article. I suggest giving his full name, mentioning his status as the camp commandant, and linking his name. Organization of the camp
 * "The red unit (Kommando Rot), which was the biggest squad, unpacked and sorted the belongings of victims who had been already "processed"." The way you word it now, it sound like some of the victims unpacked and sorted their own belonging, which isn't what I think you're trying to say. How about "unpacked and sorted the belongings of victims after they had been "processed""?
 * "A different work detail was responsible for the upkeep of Treblinka II": first, don't you mean Treblinka I, and second, why is Treblinka II italicized here when it isn’t anywhere else?

Operational command Treblinka prisoner uprising "The Jews of Treblinka became increasingly concerned about their own fate" I think you mean only those in the Sonderkommando who were most resilient to stress? The vast majority of Jews were killed within hours of arrival, and most of the Sonderkommando Jews were killed within a few days. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC) After the war Individuals responsible
 * "His deputy was SS-Hauptscharführer Fritz Küttner who maintained a net of Sonderkommando informers and did the hands-on killings." I think you mean "network"?
 * "The sculpture represents the trend toward large avant-garde forms introduced in the 1960s." The trend in Poland, in the world, in the West, in Eastern Europe? Where was this trend taking place?
 * Lorenz Hackenholt doesn't have an inline citation. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Two copy-edits, 100-some comments, and 350+ edits later, I support the promotion of this article on the basis of its prose and comprehensiveness. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing I should mention is that I could be considered "a significant contributor to the article before its nomination", hence meaning I should disclose that here. PoeticBent is the one who's put the bulk of the work in expanding and adding content to the article, but I have put a lot of work into the article's prose (almost 375 edits at this point), both during the GA review and during this FAC.

I am partly a reviewer, having offered 80-100 comments and suggestions on how to improve the article, and partly a significant contributor, having made those aforementioned 375 edits and having responded to comments by other FAC reviewers. I offer my apologies for not disclosing this COI sooner. I offer my apologies for not mentioning my role as a significant contributor sooner. I'll try to remember next time. AmericanLemming (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not the way I look at it. By design, FA is the last level of article development in Wikipedia (at this particular point in time, naturally). Whether you describe what needs to be changed (thus engaging others in making specific improvements to your satisfaction like Squeamish Ossifrage), or you change it yourself (to save time) makes no difference. We are all responsible for bringing the article to a more advanced level of development by discussing it back and forth. Squeamish Ossifrage is a significant contributor to the article as well, like Napoleon surrounded by his adoring troops. <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  19:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In light of the extensive changes made to the article in the wake of Squemish Ossifrage's comments, I intend to reread the article, if nothing else for prose considerations. However, since I am frantically cramming for an organic chemistry final this week and next, this will happen sometime between December 13-15. My intention to reread it is not meant to revoke my support given above but rather to further fine-tune the prose in light of a substantial revision to the article. Additionally, I will reread the article whether or not it passes or fails its FAC here; I've put so many hours into copy-editing and reviewing it that I want to make it the best it can be. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will do a close-read of the article today. I'm also going to review the three FACs older than this. It's going to be a good weekend for my edit count. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting more reviewers
One thing I would point out, PoeticBent, is that articles seem to need at least 5-6 reviewers to pass FAC. I happen to know that because I stalk the FAC candidates page. If the delegate deems that the article "hasn't had enough eyes on it", they won't archive it after a month (that is, fail it); they'll leave it open for another few weeks to see if a few more people will look it over.

I would suggest posting on Squeamish Ossifrage's and John's talk pages and asking them to finish their reviews by the next week or at least by the end of the month. Additionally, I would recommend asking around at WikiProject Poland and Wikiproject Military History (or any other relevant Wikiproject, for that matter) to see if anyone's willing to review the article. Furthermore, if there are any editors you know who might be willing to review the article, you could ask them as well. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent ideas. I'd like to deal with your own review first in its entirety hoping to get the first Support vote to pay the good Karma forward. <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  19:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for slacking on this one. I'll try to see where I stand in the next day or so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

 * Will take a look soon, make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 *  Treblinka II (officially the SS-Sonderkommando Treblinka), was divided into three parts and built by two groups of German Jews  - why the comma after the closing parenthesis?
 * Done. Good catch, thanks.
 *  They were led to the edge of an open excavation seven metres deep directly behind it - I'd say "pit" here - odd way to use "excavation"
 * Please look at photograph of Samuel Willenberg standing next to his study of the "Lazaret". The burial pit was big enough for a foundation of an office tower. That's why I'd rather call it an excavation this one time if you'd be so kind. — I'm looking forward to your complete review, . Many thanks, <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 05:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright - "excavation" is probably more encyclopedic than "great big pit".....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll have another look once John and Squeamish Ossifrage have revisited their opposition above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Piotrus
I have reviewed this prior to WP:GAN at Talk:Treblinka_extermination_camp. I would like to ask other reviewers if anyone has done a spotcheck on references to see if all content claimed to be referenced in fact is referenced? My spotcheck few months ago suggested it wasn't the case. If it is fixed now, I would probably support this, but until it is confirmed this is not an issue I cannot do so. Unfortunately, I don't have time nor will to do a second ref spotcheck now myself. Please echo me if there are any replies to me here. Thanks, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. Your spot check (per our discussion) was about the idea of placing an anchor behind each fact rather than at the end of each paragraph. Most references prior to expansion were already there at that particular time, only scattered. Dozens were added since then, including many scholarly monographs. Cheers, <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 10:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am willing to support as soon as another independent party confirms that references are fine. Please ping me when that happens. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone
oppose for similar reasons to Squeamish above. Despite all the work that has gone on here, there are too many problems with the text. Some examples (i have not read the full article): Sorry, just too many prose problems that don't meet the standard for FA, in my view anyway. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * some of the content of "Treblinka II" appears to be about the "killing process", which is the subject of a subsequent section.
 * " It resembled a retaining wall drawn by commandant Franz Stangl later on." Drawn where? What is this a reference to, and why is it important?
 * "they were replaced with cremation pyres which were up to 30 metres long," which -> that
 * "totally made up train schedules". "totally" not necessary
 * "unhinged locomotive". Strange choice of word. I know the term as meaning insane. Do you mean decoupled?
 * "The Jews who were resistant to the process". Again, slightly odd expression. Would have thought "The Jews who resisted" would be more natural.
 * " they became well aware of". Why not simply "they became aware of"?
 * "which had been taken out from Soviet military bunkers..." would read better as "which had been taken from Soviet military bunkers..."
 * Arithmetic contradiction. We are told the trains carried "from about 4,000 to 7,000 victims per transport" and that "An entire train transport of people could be killed in a matter of two or three hours". We are then told the first system used to gas them "was imperfect and required a lot of effort" and that the new chambers "were capable of killing 3,000 people in two hours". But as i read the above sequence, the first system was killing 4,000 to 7,000 victims in two or three hours, which is if anything faster than the second. What is happening in the text here?
 * "After the suffocation ended..." this sentence is long, cumbersome and is missing at least one punctuation mark.
 * "By April, the Nazi propaganda began to draw attention to it amongst the international community via the Katyn Commission..." clumsy sentence, and not clear what "it" is: the Katyn massacre or mass burial of corpses as a strategy (I worked out which - but the para isn't well constructed).
 * "...and made ready by the Sonderkommandos to be exchanged". Exchanged for what??
 * "brought their grand total to roughly one thousand". Why "grand"?
 * Thank you, Hamiltonstone for devoting time to our nomination. Every comment helps to make Treblinka a better article which is our ultimate goal. I would like to address the issues raised as soon as AmericanLemming completes his review as promised. <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open a month and a half, there are too many concerns with this nom for it to have a chance of achieving consensus to promote any time soon. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly. Per the FAC instructions, a nominator whose FAC has been archived must wait a minimum two weeks before nominating the same (or another) article. Poeticbent, I recommend that you use that time (or more as necessary) to work on the outstanding issues and then take the article to Peer Review or MilHist A-Class Review or even both, inviting the reviewers here (particularly those who have opposed promotion) to look over your improvements, before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.