Talk:Mauthausen concentration camp/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ready for FA?

So are you guys ready to list this article on WP:FAC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. I believe we reached a stage where we could either improve the article endlessly - or fire right away. Of course, there are some things that are bound to be fixed in a short term, but I'm afraid other questions would appear then - and we could work on this article ad nauseam. Just take a look at some of the sentences that were changed from my original version by some users, and then changed back by others...

As to specific issues. The last section on the post-war history still needs some glitches as per what Renata suggested, but it could be done in no time just. Also, as Renata hasn't got enough spare time lately, I asked Jpbrenna to do some review from the perspective of an uninformed reader. The third thing to be added is the number of inmates of Mauthausen itself - for which I asked the proper authority (sent an email to the Mauthausen Memorial).

Do you think we should wait for those things to be fixed, or could we nominate the article as-is and fix those problems during the FAC process? //Halibutt 09:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How long will it be before the above issues can be addressed? They do seem rather minor, and tentatively I'd recommend to go to FAC now. Comments there will do nothing but improve the article further, and I think it's quality is high enough to merit the attention of FAC level reviewers.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea, really. We could fire right away, as I have no idea when (and if) the Mauthausen Memorial people will respond to my letter. If I have time today in the evening (CET), I try to reorganize the section on liberation. I think the article would be more or less ready then. //Halibutt 12:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, I am looking forward to seeing it on FAC soon!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See the top of this page for a direct link :) //Halibutt 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture and table format

Ladies and Gentlemen, during the FAC process User:Dwaipayanc noted that some of the pictures and tables do not show up properly at 800x600 screen resolution. While 800x600 is a tad exotic in modern times, it's not a complain we could safely disregard. Could someone with such a screen resolution set on his/hers machine fix the problem by adjusting the pics and tables? Alternatively, I could simply delete all fixed width of all pics and leave only the "thumb" parameter. After all everyone can set the desired width of thumbs in hers/his wiki profile... What do you say? //Halibutt 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

References and stuff

I'd recommend 1) moving non-inline references to further reading section 2) adding any related sources you are familiar with but have not used yet to that section 3) ilinking names of all authors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No. 1 done, the rest would have to wait until I finish my job.... //Halibutt 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, started working on it. //Halibutt 23:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not neutral!

This article has anti-German bias and uses not neutral language.

Unless you cite the non-NPOV sections of the article, I'll remove the tag. Mário 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, try to be more specific and cite some exact spots you see in dire need of fixing. Otherwise tagging the article would not be very productive, don't you think? //Halibutt 23:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Death Toll section

Someone needs to fix this section so that the table does not display on top of the text. I tried, but don't know how to fix this. Thanks Hmains 15:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the screen resolution you use. On my PC it looks perfectly ok, but I use 1280x800px. What is yours? //Halibutt 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Marburg?

hi

in the article it mentions that marburg was one of the places where there was a big concentration camp of some sorts. i could not find anything on the net (although i only looked for couple of minutes) and nothing on wikipedia. can someone give me a source from which this information comes from please? --Greg.loutsenko 16:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The exact source for that statement requires a little browsing, which might be a tad difficult if you don't speak Spanish. A direct link to the correct frame is here. Anyway, AFAIK Marburg was not a major camp in itself and it must've been a sub-camp of some other larger complex, possibly Mittelbau-Dora or Buchenwald. There was also the Stalag XVIII-D, quite a notorious POW camp located there, which might've been somehow related. //Halibutt 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wording of lead sentence

Is it just me, or is the wording of the lead sentence incredibly awkward? "The Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp grew to become a large group of Nazi concentration camps that were built around the villages of Mauthausen and Gusen in Upper Austria."? I can find a few occurences of "grew to become" on the web, but never at the beginning of a sentence, and it seems to be rarely used by native speakers of English. If at all, I think the common pattern it's used in is something like "Mauthausen was blablabla, and later grew to become blabla". I might be wrong on this (which is why I don't just edit away), but it seems rather weird to me. mstroeck 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This article's been reviewed by several native speakers, but the author of most of the content is not a native speaker at all, so there might be a lot of such mistakes there. I guess the meaning is clear, so it's more a matter of style. However, feel free to correct that. Any native speakers to propose some better wording? //Halibutt 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mstroeck is right, it does sound strange to start off the article all of a sudden with a phrase like that, though placing it at the beginning of a sentence isn't really a problem. I suggest:

Mauthausen (known from the summer of 1940 as Mauthausen-Gusen) was a large group of Nazi concentration camps built around the villages of Mauthausen and Gusen in Upper Austria, roughly 20 kilometres east of the city of Linz.

If you extend the beginning of the sentence to make it more natural, you're stuck with saying "camp" twice, as in Mathausen was a camp that grew to become a large group of Nazi concentration camps... which also sounds strange. Since the following sentence explains that it was originally a single camp, I don't think any information is lost by omitting the first "grew to become".  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your version better, seems more natural. mstroeck 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. //Halibutt 10:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Someone vandalised this... Were is the original photo of the gate? --Skydivemayday 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What picture? I see the main gate on the liberation picture below, was there any other picture of the main gate? I can't say I remember it... //Halibutt 12:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several photos at liberation of fat healthy smiling kids, etc available. Would you like a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Yes please. //Halibutt 09:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Browsing some of the previuos discussion, I gather that the photoganda has been discussed before. Check virtualjewish...., they have plenty of photos of hordes of healthy survivors lining the road as they are liberated. Lots of other cheeerful pictures too. If you want photos of emaciated sick people in the hospital you can find plenty there also. Starving photos seem to be of typhus sufferers, not from starvation. 159.105.80.80 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like a link please. //Halibutt 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Me 262 production statistics

The claim that the camp was capable of assembling 1250 Me 262 planes a month in 1945 does not seem reasonable, given that the overall production run of the plane was less than 1400 for all time, and most of them were grounded for lack of fuel. Perhaps this claim should be clarified—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleuther (talk • contribs)

That's precisely why the article states that the factory was capable of assembling that many planes, not that it indeed did assemble that many. //Halibutt 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are precisely full of it. The article says that in 1945, "the Germans ... were able to assemble 1,250 planes a month," which implies that they were actually doing it, which seems implausible from the other evidence. This is not a moot point, it has to do with the effectiveness of the German death-through-labor system for producing technical goods. Perhaps the article should say something like, in 1945, some German officer claimed that the site could have produced 1,250 planes a month if the parts were available, or something like that. I lack the sources to make that edit myself -- I am only saying that the text, as it stands, is hard to believe.

I'll check the exact wording when I get home, but AFAIR it was something along those lines in the Polish original. I mean the Bergkristall factories were capable of assembling XXX planes every month or something along those lines. By no means the source suggested that the planes were indeed constructed in such numbers, especially that the part this was mentioned in was devoted to confrontation of planned production outcome of the entire complex with the actual production, reduced both due to shortages, problems with transportation, sabotage, low efficiency and so on. //Halibutt 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with the claimed counts probably stems from the source - "Polish original". Of course whatever the "source" says may not stand up to scrutiny - hence revisionism. A Polish, Russian, eyewitness ... can say the Matterhorn is made of Swiss cheese but do we have to believe it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, right... //Halibutt 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right - do we have to believe it? Futhermore a small clarifcation on the actual production ( very little ), not the theoritical maximum ( very big ), wouldn't hurt wiki a bit.159.105.80.80 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here in wikipedia we don't believe people, we believe sources. Present yours. //Halibutt 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to lay this one to rest. The ME 262 article claims 450 fuselages per month were assembled here, yet this article implies 1250 complete planes were manufactured here per month. So was it just fuselages, and what was the correct monthly production number? 82.44.28.101 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The article - and endless other internet sites - are still hanging onto the gas chamber story ( ie gas chambers being in Germany ). I thought all historians, pro and antiholocaust had conceded that only Poland had gas chambers. The Mauthausen "gas Chamber" seems to have no lock and handles both outside and inside - not a good design. Is the gas chamber section an error? ( Many other wiki sites on other German camps are still trying to hold out against the historians, so this is not unique )159.105.80.80 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the gas chamber section is not an error. Is there any source confirming that the gas chamber was in fact something else and that the people killed in it were in fact victims of some strange accidents? //Halibutt 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the article is that the US Army after taking over the camp left 60 former guards to be murdered by the inmates. Is that correct? 159.105.80.141 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, though the pay-back started already before the Americans arrived, and they continued after they left. In fact in one of the books (can't remember which one though) someone mentioned that even after several weeks from the liberation the former inmates weren't too sympathetic to the SS-men they could catch. But this of course differed in various sub-camps. Anyway, there was no way a small troop of Americans could prevent that even if they wanted to. //Halibutt 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gas chambers in Mauthausen-Gusen

The picture with the text "Gas chambers in Mauthausen-Gusen " does not show gas chambers, but showers. A few weeks ago I visited KZ Mauthausen and the tour guide told us that this room you can see on the picture is the room where the prisoners were sent to geht a cold shower for about 15 minutes. The gas chamber is a much smaller room for about 5 or 6 people I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.7.195 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true indeed! The gas chamber is much smaller. Unfortunately not for about 5 or 6 people but for 50-60. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.2.126 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It says 120 in the article, and gives two online links neither of which reveal a figure. 86.183.167.23 (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

The Priests

Dorothy Thompson in an article about Dachau, says that when she asked an old friend of hers, one that had been in Mauthausen for 20 months, who of the inmates had behaved the best, he paused for a second, and then he answered: The priests. --85.220.83.220 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gas chamber graffiti

A caption to the photo of a gas chamber shows graffiti in Hebrew. Shouldn't it be made clear if this is recent graffiti or was inscribed during the period of its use? I assume it is recent, but I think that should be stated. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible new front photo

Mauthausen parade ground under construction ca 1940. Every stone was hauled by forced labor from the quarry up the Todesstiege or Stairs of Death.

This is a very good article. I have one small suggestion. The front photo for this article is a modern view of the "Appellplatz". A modest proposal -- could a period picture be substituted or perhaps paired with the modern photo, in a then and now type of thing? One possibility is at right.Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gas introduction device

I have found an image of the device that was used to introduce the gas into the gas chamber

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//mauthausen/images/gas-introduction-device.jpg

This scan is from a german book, but the original image is from the US national archives.

Is it possible to crop the image, and does the licensing allow the image to be used in the article?

--OttoA (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that device could just be anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.144.150 (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Failed vandalism removal

I tried to remove some vandalism from this page, it looks like I may have done the opposite by undoing someone else's correction. My apologizes to all.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dirlewanger

"During the final months before liberation, the camp's commander Franz Ziereis prepared for its defence against a possible Soviet offensive. Most of the inmates of German and Austrian nationality "volunteered" for the SS-Freiwillige Häftlingsdivision, an SS unit composed mostly of former concentration camp inmates and headed by Oskar Dirlewanger."

Can anyone verify this information? Dirlewanger's involvement sounds a bit unlikely. Tchernobog (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, Dirlewanger is specifically mentioned in Dobosiewicz (op.cit., can't remember the page though). The name of the unit though might simply be one of the variants of the unit described in this article. //Halibutt 07:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Businesses associated with MG

I changed the table heading to "businesses associated with" MG from "businesses that profited from" MG. "Profited from" would require a specific showing with a source, there's none cited, so lacking that, "associated with" is better.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty to modify it to "Businesses profitting from slave workers of Mauthausen-Gusen". The source (there is a source for the table, it's Dobosiewicz op.cit.) uses the Polish term "skorzystały", that is "[businesses that] took profit/advantage". In the text of the book he uses much less neutral wording however ("exploitation", "slavery" and so on). Anyway, I'm not a native speaker but "associated with" sounds to me like "someone claims that this or that company had something to do with it, but it's a matter of dispute". No dispute here whatsoever. //Halibutt 09:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency on Ziereis

I've removed this statement while the inconsistencies are ironed out:

Ziereis himself stated in his testimony written on May 25 that it was his wife who convinced him not to follow the order from above.

Ziereis's Wikipedia page says he died on May 24, 1945 after being shot while attempting to escape from American troops. Obviously, he couldn't have stated anything the day after he died. Battleax86 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not personally attached to that note as (as far as I remember) it was added by some anon, but there's no real inconsistency here. English language wiki article doesn't explain Ziereis' last days in detail, which explain the problem. He ran away and hid in the mountains, but was captured and shot. Heavily wounded, he was then brought by the Americans to a hospital in Gusen (oh the irony), where he was interviewed before his death. His testimony however was not written by himself, but rather by some clerk who sent it as a report the following day - hence the date. //Halibutt 10:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Austrians or Germans ?

Was the camp run by Austrians or Germans ? The article refers to Austrians as the inmates only. --Lysy^talk 18:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know. The sources I read mention Germans only, but as there was no Austria back then, those could have included Austrians. This is but my speculation though. //Halibutt 13:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There where not only Germans and Austrians in duty at this camp. The Mauthausen trial (Dachau) files also bring up that there has been sentenced: Michael Cerny & Franz Kautny (Czech), Heinrich Fitschok & Josef Mayer (Yugoslavian), Viktor Korger & Ferdinand Lappert (Sudeten German), Kaspar Klimowitsch (Romanian), Thomas Sigmund (Hungarian). Those are more then 10 % of the accused (61 persons). One can assume how much have been involved without any prosecution. Austrianbird (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mauthausen inmates

Is it possible to get documentation of individuals housed at one of these camps.? My father was imprisoned at Mauthausen during the war as a young Polish civilian.. regards Rick.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.58.154 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. Google them up and send an e-mail, they send photocopies of original files (if they have copies themselves). Auschwitz museum also does that. //Halibutt 14:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Spanish inmates in the lead

I removed the following sentence from the lead:

The largest prisoner of war contingent was Soviet, the second largest was Spanish.<ref>Spaniards in the Holocaust, Preface, David Wingeate Pike, Routledge, 2000</ref> 

While technically correct, the statement is misleading, especially as the fourth sentence in the entire article. The Soviets and Spaniards made up the largest groups of POWs incarcerated there. However, in terms of overall numbers of inmates of certain nationality, the Spaniards were way behind Poles (probably the most numerous group), Germans or many other nationalities (Yugoslavians come to mind). IMHO mentioning only prisoners of war in the lead is misleading at best. //Halibutt 14:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the statement is at all misleading. The beginning of the sentence makes it perfectly clear that it's talking about POWs only, not other types of inmates. I suggest putting it back—if not in the lead then somewhere else in the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What is misleading is speaking of POWs before we mention that they were not the largest group of inmates and that it wasn't primarily a POW camp. An uninformed reader might get the impression that the largest groups of inmates of M-G were Spanish POWs. //Halibutt 21:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could suggest a rewording or repositioning of this sentence such that the information is preserved without misleading the reader. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving it further down the article seems like a rather sensible option if you believe it should stay in the article. However, I'm not sure where would it fit best - and I'm not sure it fits in the article at all.

First of all, I don't like the idea of dividing up the inmates onto POWs and the rest, mostly because the Germans did not use that category themselves, and even the scarce data as to numbers of inmates we have do not mention POWs. From the fact that most of the Spaniards might have been former republican soldiers authors might infer that they were the second largest group of prisoners of war (after the Soviets). But it's but an assumption, we don't know that (lack of data and lack of distinction onto POWs and non-POW inmates in the data we have). I'm over-exaggerating here slightly, but it's similar to saying that "since the largest groups of inmates were Polish and Soviet citizens, it's safe to assume that most of the prisoners of Mauthausen-Gusen were blonde". It might be true, or might not be true, but that doesn't really mean we should include the info in the article. //Halibutt 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I was not aware of those facts, so I will defer to your better-informed judgment. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Mauthausen, gas chambers...

trans from German. More on Dr Capesius, Auschwitz 'pharmacist.' 12.02.1944 Arrival in Auschwitz. (feb 1944.)

18.02.1944 Death of the senior pharmacist Dr. Krömer. 19.02.1944 Capesius placed in charge. 19.11.1944 SS-Stubaf. Nov 09 1944 (the last murder by gas was Nov 24 or 25, 1944).

• This proves that Capesius was in charge of the pharmacy during the mass murder of the Hungarian Jews, during the summer of 1944. He would have been an expert on the use of zyklon b.

18.01.1945 Flight to Berlin to support SS Staf. Dr. Enno Lolling.

1945: Commander of pharmacy in Mauthausen Concentration camp.

As an expert in zyklon B, Capesius would have proved invaluable at Mauthausen and Gusen camps. I believe they also used gas vans at these camps.Valleyspring (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfons_Bentele source for nameValleyspring (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&p=1764377 Gross, Karl-Josef. SS-Arzt* 12.12.1907 Bad Vellach in Kärnten. SS-Sturmbannführer Karl-Josef(or Joseph)Gross Born 12-10(or 12)-1907 SS-number 314.902 But he was never TFK, he was Medical-Officer when he served at the front. He also worked for the SS-Hygiene-Institut, the Robert-Koch-Hospital, in KL Mauthausen and at the Zentralinstitut for Krebsforschung. 314 902(ss-number), Karl GROSS, 12.10.1907, SS-Sturmbannführer der Waffen-SS - awans w dniu 20.04.1942 r. Source: numery czlonków SS 314.000 - 314.999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyspring (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor issue in the lead

According to the lead, the camps "history ran from the time of the Anschluss in 1938 to the last week of the Second World War". According to the article about the Second World War, the war ended in September 1945. I assume the camp wasn't used to September. It could may have been added a clumsy "War in Europe", but suggest to change it to "the last week before the German capitulation", or use the more specific month and year. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"If there is a God, he will have to beg for my forgiveness"

It appears so. Rhys Lowe saw the carving on cell block 20 of the prisoners' barracks at Mauthausen, and another, "Bob Lucky" saw it in a film presented im the camp; [In the museum the attendant put on a movie in English just for us, and we sat by ourselves in an auditorium watching the history of Mauthausen. Another couple joined us part way through, but that was it. The line from the movie that both Len and I remembered most was a bit of grafiti scribbled on the wall by one of the doomed prisioners. "If there is a God, He will have to beg my forgiveness." http://www.boblucky.com/Biking/Danube/day3.htm]. More evidence and references would be needed I'm afraid. -PAR1138 (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Was this really scratched onto a cell wall by a Jewish prisoner? I have heard that it was. If it was, should it be mentioned in the article? 138.38.11.13 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As striking as it may seem, I'm afraid wall scribblings are too un-encyclopaedic. Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 14:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This quote is confirmed by a documentary video available on the http://en.mauthausen-memorial.at/ website. The relevant section is at 19mins 20secs. http://en.mauthausen-memorial.at/db/admin/de/showvideodetail256.php?cvideo=39&cbereich=1&cthema=347 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.134.122 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Major problems with citations

For being a featured article, I consider this article for having serious lacks and problems when it comes to inline citations. A lot of the citations used, are in polish, which is completely ok with the referencing policies, but it makes it harder to clean up for a non-polish-speaking editor. I could start tagging, or even suggest a demotion of the article, but I don't want to do it if the problem could be fixed other ways. The language is may not brilliant according to todays expectations for new FA, but I think it is good enough for survival if other problems are fixed, and the article seems balanced and all that stuff (I doesn't dare to set it up against the good article Auschwitz, as the latter got far easier access to reliable sources).

To be more accurate: Examples of lacks is lack of publishing house or year published, use of "op.cit" (see WP:IBID, sources that are really more footnotes than sources, sources which is unclear what it is ("'Człowiek człowiekowi... Niszczenie polskiej inteligencji w latach 1939-1945 KL Mauthausen/Gusen' Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa, Warszawa 2009" - what is this?? Does it have pages?), sources in foreign languages without the right tag for language. There are also problems related to lack or wrong use of cite templates.

Suggestion for early clean-up is to make a list of books used for citations (not mixed with further reading). Such a list could replace "op.cit"-referencing, and makes a better overview of the sources (see WP:CITESHORT.

This post is ment for suggesting constructive improvements, though I've seen it in the light of the fact that it is featured. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently on vacation, or more precisely my honeymoon. I'll be happy to address your issues some time next week. 89.68.150.236 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to log in, sorry about that. //Halibutt 00:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Enjoy your vacation. See you in a week or so. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back :) First of all, thanks for converting footnotes from one system to another. As you know this article is pretty old now. Back in the days there weren't that many options when it comes to text formatting.

Luckily I have most of the books on my shelve and I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you might have. As to the specific issues you raise:

1. Refs in Polish - indeed, most works I used when writing this article are in Polish. As usually, there was a choice of either writing a mere stub with what little info is there in English-language publications, or use the monographs in other languages. I chose the latter option. I believe there is nothing wrong with that. Some topics (probably most of them) are not yet covered in English language works, and this is especially true to the history of Central Europe. Auschwitz is probably an exception here as it is a symbol, popular around the world and one can find works on its' history in most languages I guess. Mauthausen-Gusen is another matter completely. It seems there's not a single monograph of the camp in English. Anyway, I added trans_title parametres to all refs just in case, I also corrected some title translations that were already there. All refs are also properly marked with the language tag.
2. "The language is may not brilliant according to todays expectations for new FA" - I'm afraid you'd have to be more specific than that. Like you, I'm not a native speaker. The article has been repeatedly edited by native speakers who improved my prose considerably, but there still might be some glitches I guess. You'd have to point me in the right direction though.
3. "set it up against the good article Auschwitz" - well, actually it's more complicated than that. There's plenty of works on Auschwitz out there. However, as the topic is so popular, it's actually harder to find a good monograph of the camp among hundreds of poorly-referenced and poorly-written popular history books. This is but a sidenote though.
4. "Examples of lacks is lack of publishing house or year published" - I can't see any refs missing a publishing house or a year of publication. I corrected one year of publication recently ("Poprzez Dachau do Mauthausen-Gusen" by Adam Myczkowski had no year on the front page so I initially used the year used in the printing press note; I corrected it to the year used by the National Library index). I doubt that's the problem you mean though. Could you please be more specific?
5. "use of "op.cit" (see WP:IBID)" - the page says that op. cit. is "less problematic" than the "discouraged" ibid. Do you really consider the current reference system problematic? I mean most articles I write nowadays use a much clearer distinction onto footnotes, citations and bibliography (cf. Battle_of_Warsaw_(1831)#References). This system was unavailable back in 2006, when I wrote most of what you see here. Anyway, I started to separate then citations from bibliography, but completing the task might take some more time.
6. "sources that are really more footnotes than sources" - converted all of them to proper footnotes
7. "sources in foreign languages without the right tag for language" - again, all of them have tags I believe. Or do you mean something else?

Regards, //Halibutt 10:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Grrahnbahr: are you still there? //Halibutt 23:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm still here, but haven't worked on the Norwegian article for a couple of weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Facts

The article lacks scientific and historical value, it's religious. The quoted Polish sources are from the 1960s, when communist propaganda in the former Eastern Block was on its peak. And yes, Poland has an anti-German hate industry. That's how it is and what makes up Polish identity. This inflated hate served for the ideological take over of ethnically cleansed territories that were conquered by Poland. And the count the former non Polish habitants as "there" victims, so to get an inflated number for Polish sufferings. Many people start realizing how much propaganda is involved with buzz words like concentration camps, and how little serious history is actually available (the article doesn't even quote one). But people begin getting critical with Western propaganda, asking questions, having doubts about "official" history etc., and make up their minds from other sources than Wikipedia. That's good... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.88.115 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@125.212.88.115: and your point is... what exactly? Go ahead, I read all of the books I used when writing this article, I even have most of them on my bookshelf, feel free to ask specific questions about them or raise concerns about this or that source. But criticising them just because they were written in Polish... well, that's hardly serious, is it. BTW, there's plenty of reliable scientific publications in the bibliography section, and the article makes extensive use of those. Did you actually read it? //Halibutt 20:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR needed

This FA, promoted in 2006, has fallen quite far relative to standards. There are link farms in See also and External links, there are sources listed in Bibliography that are not used as Citations, there is an inconsistent citation style, there are numerous MOS issues (eg WP:ENDASH on number ranges, WP:MSH, inconsistency between use of en- and emdashes, and more), there is hidden text, an unnecessary photo gallery, lists that should be prosified, and a lot of uncited text. Unless someone is able to bring this article to standard, it should probably go to WP:FAR for a review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by :) As to specific issues:

1. Link farms in "See also" - none of Wikipedia articles listed in the see also section appear to be link farms
2. Link farms in "External links" - again, I removed two outdated links and updated one of them, but none of the links appear to be to a link farm.
3. "sources listed in Bibliography that are not used as Citations" - Per WP:FURTHER there is nothing wrong with having a "Further reading" section in the article. Or did you mean something else?
4. inconsistent citations style - all citations are in {{sfn}} now. The work is never complete as people will keep adding refs in their preferred style regardless of whether I prefer sfn or any other style.
5. Hidden text - I couldn't find any. Could you please point me in the right direction?
6. Photo gallery - are you suggesting galleries of pictures are banned? They are not. Let's talk in WP:Gallery terms, but you would have to be a tad more specific. I believe the gallery illustrates the topic better. If you believe otherwise - let's talk :)
7. WP:MSH: what's wrong with the sections as they are? Please, be more specific.
8. en dashes and em dashes - I believe I corrected all en dashes, let me know if I missed some. Some help would be appreciated.
9. "lists that should be prosified" - again, I disagree. If I remember correctly, the list of companies was introduced specifically after someone asked for it to be turned into a list during GA/FAC procedure. In any way, WP:EMBED does not ban us from using lists when their use is justifiable (for instance when the alternative would be a really long sequence, as in the case of lists of companies). Or did I get you wrong and you meant something completely different?
10. Uncited text - again, you would have to be more specific. What fragments need additional citation? Sure, I write most of my recent articles with one ref per sentence, this article is almost a decade old when using citations at all was a pretty uncommon thing, but I believe I can still supply you with citations. But you would have to point me in the right direction :)

//Halibutt 14:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Halibutt ... I am out of time for this morning, but will get back to you soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm back ... sorry for the delay! You may be aware that FA standards have changed significantly since 2006, and in the last few years, processing of older FAs at Unreviewed featured articles fell at least five years behind! Per your numbered list (above:

1. The problem with the See also list is that it engages a question about the comprehensive crit. of Featured articles. In undeveloped articles, the "See also" section is typically a place where items that need to be incorporated into the article are "temporarily parked". FAs are expected to be comprehensive, which typically means that anything that should be mentioned in See also should have been worked in to the article as a link, where possible. It isn't always possible to link every relevant article in the body of the article, but exceptions are rare. It doesn't appear in this case that all of the See also items could not/should not be mentioned and linked somewhere in the article to satisfy comprehensiveness.
2. On external links, similar. In a Featured article, because it should be comprehensive, anything extraordinary mentioned in ELs warrants explanation. I don't think most of those belong ... as an example, the link to Holocaust Survivors Oral History Project might be relevant as a Holocaust EL, but is extraneous here. I see little justification for many of the links there, in a fully developed, hopefully comprehensive article.
3. Further reading shows the same problem. The excess in all of these areas leads to concern that either the article is not comprehensive, or items are included that need not be. For example, this is en.wiki, meaning that Polish sources need not be included. If they are included, why? Has content from them not been included? Just a sample concern ... All of the sources listed as Bibliography items should be used as citations, or Further reading should be justified, and all harv big red ref errors should be eliminated.
4. Citations are still inconsistent and there are still harv ref errors: sometimes the date is included on short refs, and sometimes it is not. New editors might add inconsistent citations, so it is important to keep FAs watchlisted and stay on top of the routine maintenance items.
5. Hidden text, sample in the box of "Death Toll Statistics Gusen I, II and III"
6. I don't see that WP:GALLERY is adequately complied with. For example (as but one), "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." We have Commons links. In FAs, galleries are useful for illustrating, as one example, art or architecture articles; I think the gallery here (along with ELs and Further reading and See also) can all be pruned. A concise and trim article is more useful to the reader.
7. WP:MSH corrected ... avoid the use of "the" and repetition of higher-level headings and title.[1]
8. Dashes: most of the article seems to use spaced WP:ENDASHes, but in the lead, I find an unspaced WP:EMDASH, for example, at "it was referred to by the nickname Knochenmühle—the bone-grinder". Also ... the prisoners were confined at sub-zero temperatures—without adequate food or water—for several days ... Let me know which you are using, and I will recheck. I'm also confused about what looks like unnecessary hyphens, for example "The reasons for sending them to work in the "Punishment-Detail" were trivial ..." is that a translation issue? Another example: sub-camp or subcamp? and others ...
9. Lists that could be prosified: see the section "Treatment of inmates and methodology of crime" ... that list is just not "brilliant or professional prose", and another problem is the use of the list leads to questions about which on the list are cited to what source. That list can be converted to professional prose.
10. The uncited text is considerable ... I am loathe to add cns tags to a Featured article, but will do so if necessary once everything else is dealt with. Please note that all data and quotations should be explicitly cited and opinions should be cited and attributed ...

Additional:

1. WP:MOSNUM, sample, From late 1940 to 1944, the number of inmates per bed rose from 2 to 4 ... should be two to four.
2. Images ... many of the captions have incorrect punctuation, and there is text squeezed between images (image placement issues).
3. A one-sentence section under "Staff" ... raises issues of short, stubby prose and comprehensiveness, or article organization ... is that all that can be said about staff?

There is more ... the article needs a good deal of updating to meet current FA standards, but so as not to overwhelm, I will stop there for now. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool! It's always better to be specific, let's work together and we'll fix this article in no time. OTOH some of the issues you raise seem to be not really related to FAC rules but rather personal preference (I love sfn citations, others find them irritating, you get the idea). Ok, one by one then.

1. I always treated the see also section as our internal "further reading": articles that could be of interest to the reader, but not necessarily directly linked to the topic. MOS:SEEALSO states clearly, that "the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Having pointed that out, I'm not particularly attached to the current list of links in the "see also" section so it's entirely up to you. We could leave the links there (MoS says it's ok as it is), or we could delete some or even all of them.
2. Again, per WP:EXT "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Which to me sounds like the Oral History website fits perfectly into that category: it's related, it contains further research, but is too detailed to be used in the body of the article (one could argue that using oral history interviews as a source would border WP:OR, but that's another matter completely). Anyway, I believe the external link you mentioned above is perfectly fine, but if you believe this one should go - go ahead, I'm not going to argue.
3. Again, per WP:FURTHER the "Further reading" section seems perfectly fine. It's a "reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" - in this case publications on Mauthausen-Gusen that I considered important, but did not use them as a source when writing the article. The list is by no means excessive, it's not the list of all publications on the topic (bear in mind that I do possess almost everything that was published on Mauthausen in my library). Do you have a problem with any of the books, or is their number your sole concern? If the earlier - let's talk. If it's the latter - then what would you consider a "reasonable number" (per WP:FURTHER)? Oh, and is there any rule that says users of en wiki should not be exposed to books written in languages other than English? Or did I get your comment wrong?
4. The citation style is consistent. Look more closely: the dates are excluded from short footnotes, unless there's more than one publication by certain author, in which case the year of publication serves as disambiguation. I can switch to whatever citation style you prefer, but is it really necessary? As far as I remember FA criteria there's no single preferred citation style, it's all fine as long as the author(s) stick with one. Also, I believe "All of the sources listed as Bibliography items are used as citations" (or am I missing something? please be so kind as to point me in the right direction). And I see absolutely no "harv big red ref errors". Are you sure we're looking at the same article? ;)
5. Errrr... there's no hidden text there. It's a footnote, the one you see as Note 10 in the Footnotes section, so it's perfectly visible. There's no <!-- markers anywhere else in the article either, for that matter. Or did you mean that the table is auto-collapsed? If that's a problem we can easily change that.
6. I trimmed the gallery a little for now, if you feel very strongly about it we could remove it altogether (be bold!). But I'm not sure it being there breaks any rules and I kind of like it.
7. Ah, that's what you meant... Thanks.
8. Correct me if I'm wrong, but MOS:DASH doesn't mention that it's forbidden to use both commas and dots in a sentence, or both en and em dashes. But then again, I'm not a native speaker and in my native language en and em dashes serve a completely different purpose, so my intuition might be wrong. In any way, I'd need your help with this one: I'll correct em dashes to en dashes, or the other way around, just tell me which of the two you prefer. As to hyphens, I guess "Punishment-Detail" is a "too direct" translation from German, corrected that now (hopefully). I also corrected all sub-camps to subcamps. It seems Google Books now shows some preference for that version (5:3), so it's fine by me.

   We try to be consistent and use either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes throughout. I replaced 3 of the em-dashes (and kept one at the end of a block quote). - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

9. Done (hopefully).
10. As I said, in articles I write today I use at least one citation per sentence, but I think I'll be able to properly source any claims you might find dubious or in need of specific citation (if it's not clear from the context that the entire passage is sourced with one ref rather than separate refs for every fact). But you're right, let's fix everything else first.

Additional:

1. Done
2. I reshuffled some of the images, reverting all to default width. However, bear in mind that it all depends on your screen resolution and setup. As to captions, I did a cleanup, hope I got all the dots properly. I also added some alt text, but I was never any good at it, so some help would be appreciated.
3. Well, it's actually what was left of sections added by other people. The way it is now, I believe we could safely delete the entire para, as there's risk of WP:UNDUE as there is no mention of the national composition of the remaining SS guard corps. OTOH I'm an inclusionist, so I'm always hesitant to delete a sourced sentence; maybe we could attach the sentence somewhere? What do you think? //Halibutt 12:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

OTOH some of the issues you raise seem to be not really related to FAC rules but rather personal preference (I love sfn citations, others find them irritating, you get the idea) .... No, sorry, I don't get your idea  :) I've said nothing against sfn citations, and as a former FAC delegate (promoting, archiving and reviewing several thousand FACs and FARs over more than half a dozen years), I am unlikely to deviate from the standards into personal preference. When I do so, I indicate it is a personal preference I am expressing-- I have not done so here. Let's do work together ... please let me know when you have made more progress on the issues raised, and I will have a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I didn't mean to offend you in any way, I merely used an example from my own past :) What I meant to say is that it's understandable that someone's personal preferences at times win with their knowledge of our Manual of Style. There's a couple of perfect examples above: you raise a problem with the See also section, MOS:SEEALSO says it's pretty much ok as it is. So it's not really about standards as such, it's more about... errr... taste, for lack of a better term. And to be clear, I'm fine with that; changing the article to better suit the taste of such an experienced editor as yourself would make it better, regardless of what MoS defines as the bare minimum. Let's make this article better :)

Also, I believe I replied to all the questions you raised, Dank was so kind as to correct the em dashes for us, what else is there to fix now? //Halibutt 23:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the article would probably benefit from an A-class review. Most of our FACs go through A-class first these days, and standards were very different back in 2006. My role at A-class is limited; I'd feel more comfortable if others who know more about many things had a look. Our A-class reviewers tend to do much of the work themselves or to be very specific about what they are looking for; I don't expect the review would be a burden. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dank, is there any possibility of you rounding up anyone who might help? Typically, the FAR nominator (me) should shephard the article through FAR, but there is more work here than any single one (or maybe three or four editors) can point out, and explain ... particularly when I am getting the sense that Halibutt hasn't engaged a lot of FACs, FARs or FA reviewing or standards in general over the almost ten years since this article was promoted. I don't mean to offend, and it's not a matter of "offense", Halibutt, but it is going to take apparently a very long time to spell out a number of items that are common in FA reviewing ... for example, you don't understand the problem with the hidden text in the death stats. And we haven't even begun to look at prose and citing issues. I am not offended ... I've just realized through a wall of text above-- that doesn't yet even come close to addressing all of the issues-- that this is going to be a very big job, requiring more than one editor to shephard this through FAR and help with improvements, including explaining to you the need for them. If Dank can round up someone, or if another FAR regular weighs in, that would be very helpful at this point. I'm out of time until after this weekend ... and the typical FAR is improved by editors experienced at FA and not needing a lot of guidance. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sample citation issues ... does it really take six pages of the book to cite prostitutes? ... or common criminals, prostitutes[9] and other ... Żeromski, pp. 6–12. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There is odd use of hyphens everywhere, sample ... The rock-quarry in ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There is odd use of quote marks everywhere (and sometimes single instead of double quote marks), sample ... The prisoners transferred to the "Hospital Subcamp" received ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Repetitive and redundant prose needs to be addressed, perhaps with an independent copyedit ... sample only ... The plan was known to one of the Polish resistance organizations which started an ambitious plan of gathering tools necessary to dig air vents in the entrances. Plan ... plan ... there are many instances where prose could be better polished and more varied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. My recommendation is A-class first ... since it also probably doesn't meet A-class standards at this point, and if we're going to look at both, it would make more sense to do A-class first. Halibutt, would you be willing to nominate this for A-class? The simple instructions are at WP:MHR. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, we can't have two processes going on at once. Everything should be streamlined to FAR in the first instance I would have thought. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I Agree! My query to Dank was if he could round up someone who might help-- not initiate a parallel process. I remain concerned about a considerable number of issues in this article (prose, sourcing, focus and comprehensiveness), and would be more encouraged to continue listing them once the WP:NOT repository of excess information in Further reading, External links, See also (STILL) and the image gallery are dealt with ... I see some minor inconsistencies in citations that I can clean up myself once more work is done on the article, and there are still red harv ref errors and unused sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, A-class seems to be a non-issue ... neither Halibutt nor anyone at Milhist has responded. It was worth a shot. I'll come back and check on this in a few days. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Break (one month)

Guys, I'm out of town for a couple of days, I'll respond in full when I get back (Saturday, most probably). As to what SandyGeorgia wrote above, I still see no link farms in the See also section, no red errors in harvard links and so on. Also, I believe I already replied to your suggestions above regarding Further reading (in short: there's nothing wrong with this section apparently), image gallery and so on. Awaiting your reply now.

I'd be happy to correct any issues this article might have, but let's stick to MoS where we can. As to prose, indeed it might be better to seek external help in polishing the prose. As you know I'm not a native speaker, so I'm not the best person to do it. Finally, as to missing references, I already started adding more in-line refs before my current trip, will add plenty more, but pointing me to places that need to be properly sourced with a {{fact}} tag would be nice. I know adding fact tags to a FA might look bad, so perhaps you could list such places here - or create a quick fork in a Sandbox somewhere? Oh, and thanks for all the love you've all shown this article so far :) //Halibutt 12:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged several of the issues needing attention, corrected some myself, there are still red harv ref errors and images squeezing text in addition to what I've tagged. I can begin noting prose and citation issues once those are dealt with. Also, these See also items should be incorporated into the prose:

• Steyr-Münichholz subcamp
• Mühlviertler Hasenjagd

We have an article on the Holocaust: I have removed general External links and foreign-language Further reading not used as sources. There is still one book in Further reading where it is unclear why it is there (that is, why isn't it used instead as a source).

The image gallery has not been dealt with.

The comprehensiveness issue on the Staff section is unaddressed.

The harv ref error is at:

• KZ Gusen Memorial Committee (corporate author) (1997). "KZ Gusen I Concentration Camp at Langenstein". The Nizkor Project. Nizkor. Retrieved 2006-04-10. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFNizkor.

I don't know why you are unable to see that, and I don't do harv refs so I don't know how to fix it.

If we can get the basics addressed and move on to the prose issues, here is a sample of an entire section that needs to be copyedited:

• It was not until 1949 that it was declared a national memorial site. Finally, 30 years after the camp's liberation, on 3 May 1975, Chancellor Bruno Kreisky officially opened the Mauthausen Museum. Decades later, in 2003, a Visitor Centre was inaugurated, designed by the architects Herwig Mayer, Christoph Schwarz, and Karl Peyrer-Heimstätt, with an area of 2,845 m². Unlike Mauthausen, much of what constituted the subcamps of Gusen I, II and III is now covered by residential areas built after the war.

That is a sample only of the sort of prose that would not pass GA or A-class, must less FAC (with a missing convert on the square meters to square feet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Halibutt, I suggest you are going to need to locate independent collaborators to help bring this article to standard; do you know any experienced FA writers who might help? It doesn't appear that you are likely to follow my advice, so it would be helpful if another FA writer pitched in ... this is too much work for one editor, and would benefit from a collaboration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Following up on the Harv Ref error from the Memorial site leads to another example of the need for an independent, thorough copyedit:

• In addition, following Himmler's order in June 1941, a brothel was opened for them in 1942, in the Mauthausen and Gusen I camps.

ack, text throughout needs to be copyedited by an independent person who can bring fresh eyes to the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp#Weapons research

@Kierzek: Per the discussion on your talk page, I have rewritten this section. It now essentially states: "Someone claimed nuclear weapons research may have been conducted here; experts say that is not true." I am preserving relevant sources here [], but — in accordance with WP:UNDUE — I cannot see expanding this section which is about someone's claims that were refuted. - Location (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

References

I agree. As David Porter states in one of his books, "The true history of German nuclear research may never be known...[it] quickly becomes clouded by eccentric conspiracy theories." That is what this sub-section was before your edit, a WP:Fringe theory which should not be given WP:Undue weight in the article. Kierzek (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed from the lead

some of its subcamps also turned into memorials. - the page doesn't contain a list of subcamps turned into memorials nor links such list.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Melk Abbey connection

I used to have a small book about Mauthausen (wish I could remember the title) where it said that the monks on the height of the famous baroque Melk Abbey were able to look down into the camp and must have seen the abuses taking place! Why didn't they use their international Benedictine connections to stop said abuses? Errikker (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311012440/http://www.geheimprojekte.at/t_linz2.html to http://www.geheimprojekte.at/t_linz2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)