Talk:Alexander Pechersky/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: fixed four dabs.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: no dead links. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Pechersky is remembered for organizing and leading the only successful revolt and mass-escape from a Nazi concentration camp during World War II. Repetition of information given in preceding paragraph.

   The goal was: 1) To escape to freedom with as many prisoners as possible. 2) To take vengeance and kill the SS officers and guards. 3) To find and join the partisans, better expressed in prose, rather than a numbered list.

   Otherwise prose is good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All references check out as far as I can ascertain.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A very interesting article. Just a few minor points above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for attending to those details. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Mr. Pechersky deserves it. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a large POV issue remaining. See below.--Galassi (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The russophone Israeli article specifically states that the guards were NOT EXCLUSIVELY Ukrainian, contrary to Meishern's insistence. I see it as a large POV infraction.--Galassi (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Requested

Hi, I am the primary author of this article. I changed the duplicate sentence and changed the enumeration. Please let me know if it’s acceptable! Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not, sorry to say. You insist on referring to guards as exclusuvely Ukrainian, which is hopefully a goodfaith error (is it?).(Кроме «украинеров-западенцев» добровольцами были русские, белорусы, прибалтийские и «туркестанские» добровольцы. По источнику в Травниках обучались ещё и граждане бывшей Югославии – словаки и хорваты. Во всяком случае, в 1943 году Глобочник получил разрешение от Гиммлера на набор русских. http://webstudio.il4u.org.il/projects/lagerya_op_reinhard/travniki.html). Absolutely unacceptable.--Galassi (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your 'source' is someone's blog in Israel, and since I can read Russian, it talks about 'Травники/Travniki' training camp that had multiple nationalities. The Ukrainian volunteers though exclusively made up the Sobibor SS auxiliary guards and everyone from German SS to Sobibor survivors are unanimous on that point. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)