Talk:Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 23:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Catriona. I am ready to assess this, but I note that there is still fairly regular editing activity. Do you want to ping me when you have the article to your satisfaction? No rush - a week or two would be fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for agreeing to review the article. I just got access to the Kárný source, which casts doubts on many of the assumptions made by other sources. When I have it all straightened out I will let you know. Catrìona (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good. Take your time. If I haven't heard from you by the end of September, I'll give you a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've now got it where I want it to be. My next step after this is Milhist A-Class review, so please let me know if there's anything I need to do to get it up to that standard. Thanks again. Catrìona (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Catriona. I am far from an expert on A class, but I shall make what suggestions I can.

• I have done a light copy edit. Could you check that you are happy with it all.

 Done, thanks!

• "They would kill the driver, dispose of his body..." The driver of what? This person appears without introduction.

 Added

• Footnotes 47, 50, 51 and 53 are harv references which don't link to a reference.

 Fixed 50 and 51.  Not done 47 and 53 are web sources without listed authors, so I used the publisher, which doesn't link correctly. How should I format those citations?

• There are several publisher locations or ISBNs missing from your references.

 Added publisher locations for all the books. I was not able to find an ISBN for Kulka 1965. All the other sources are web or journals.

• "According to Langbein…" is, I assume, the second account. I think that it would be clearer if this were explicitly flagged up. (Personally I would lose "There are two accounts of how Pestek decided to escape with Lederer. One account says that".)

 Removed

• You several times use the phrase "SS-Rottenführer" without explaining what this is. Perhaps an explanation towards the end of the "Viktor Pestek" section?

 Added

• "the chance of success was extremely remote". This reads oddly, do you mean 'the chance of escape without insider assistance was extremely remote'?

Karny writes, "das war ein Abenteuer, das nur katastrophal enden konnte." — (this was an adventure that could only end in catastrophe). I've changed the sentence in the article to, success was impossible under the circumstances.

• "According to Neumann, who had previously rejected an offer of escape from Pestek, recognized that he was sincere." This doesn't form a sentence, and I don't want to copy edit it as I am unsure what you are trying to say.

 Fixed

• "On 20 April, before the return to Auschwitz, Lederer went to the nearby town of Travčice,[21][31] where the barber Václav Veselý, who regularly went into the ghetto to shave the Czech guards and had helped the Jews in the past, told him how to sneak past the sentries" A long and complicated sentence, IMO.

 Fixed

• Suggestion. The lead seems to end a little abruptly. How about adding 'After the war he remained in Czechoslovakia, remarried, suffered from Soviet antisemitism, and died in Prague in 1972'?

 Added

• Suggestion. I found the mention of differing accounts by various writers confusing. Possibly briefly cover this in a 'Sources' section immediately before "Auschwitz"?

I'm not really sure what this would look like. Could you point me at another article which employs such a section?

In haste before bedtime. Historiography at the end of Tetricus I. Umm, only one I can find in a hurry. I will look further tomorrow. It is only a suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Upon second thought, I don't think there are enough reliable sources discussing historiography to write such a section for this article without veering into OR. Catrìona (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's all for now. I shall take another look, with freash eyes, in a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. After some experimenting I managed to link refs 47 and 53. I think that you are close to done. I shall have a last read through, focusing on the extensive notes, over the weekend with A class in mind and get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor copy edits, could you check them.

For ACR, note t: "but it is apparently not very informative". A little clumsy. Perhaps 'but it provides little information' or similar?

Many of my confusions around the conflicting accounts in the sources have been resolved by a second reading of the notes; eg notes k, u and p. I am not overly happy about this, but I can't think of a better way of handling it. It is likely that it is inherently complex and there is no "satisfactory" way of handling it. Certainly, IMO, it is up to GA standard.

A very fine, well written and well referenced article. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'm going to hunt down a few additional sources and then put it up for ACR. Catrìona (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed