Talk:Jacob Gens/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc Shearonink (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
"More recent scholarship"? Who/what/where/when...more specifics are needed. And the wording of this statement is somewhat clunky and needs to be smoothed-out/adjusted. The complete sentence is "More recent scholarship has come to see that view is not really helpful and that because of the unique nature of the destruction facing the ghetto leaders, including Gens, no one could have expected that the Nazis were aiming at the complete destruction of the Jewish people."
Do you have any suggestions on a better way to word this? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stated the way it is right now implies that there are multiple people saying this or that a scholarly consensus has developed and that is not backed-up by the cited reference. It is from a single writer and he doesn't mention others' opinions. If you want to retain the present reference you could state your case and then include quoted material (either using quote marks or with a box-quote template), maybe something along the lines of:

Vadim Alaskan, of the the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, states that "...Holocaust historiography treated people such as ...Jacob Gens ...as instruments of destruction in the hands of the Nazi killing machine. ... Applied retrospectively, these charges for the most part are judgmental and add very little to our understanding of the events. Neither Jewish functionaries nor "ordinary" Jews had any practical or psychological experience in dealing with the grim reality of the Nazi occupation, because never before in their long history of persecution had the Jews experienced an assault of such magnitude and careful design.

Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Scrupulously sourced.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool and no problems were found. I am, however, troubled by the somewhat-close paraphrasing from "On the Other Side of the River: Dr. Adolph Herschmann and the Zhmerinka Ghetto, 1941-1944" by Vadim Altskan.

For instance, Altskan's article states:
They were portrayed as delusional, selfish, and naïve Jewish functionaries, easily tricked and outmaneuvered by the Nazis and their collaborators. Applied retrospectively, these charges for the most part are judgmental and add very little to our understanding of the events. Neither Jewish functionaries nor "ordinary" Jews had any practical or psychological experience in dealing with the grim reality of the Nazi occupation, because never before in their long history of persecution had the Jews experienced an assault of such magnitude and careful design

and the WP article
In the period immediately after the end of the war, Gens, along with other ghetto leaders, was considered to have been collaborators with the Nazis who were outwitted by the Germans and contributed to the destruction of the Jews. More recent scholarship has come to see that view is not really helpful and that because of the unique nature of the destruction facing the ghetto leaders, including Gens, no one could have expected that the Nazis were aiming at the complete destruction of the Jewish people
I'm not seeing anything other than summarizing the source here. The sentence structure isn't quite the same, the words are different, and we are supposed to convey the essence of the source's thoughts. Which means that we need to be close to what they wrote so that we accurately reflect the information. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it, but I'm not seeing it as too close at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~See 1b above. If something like this adjustment is followed, that will take care of any possible paraphrasing issues with the present paragraph.~~ Fixed.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The Death and Legacy section seems somewhat truncated to me. Could additional facts from other sources about Gen's time in the Ghetto be added like from David Laskins' book "The Family: A Journey into the Heart of the Twentieth Century" https://books.google.com/books?id=Up7X4zkJLxsC&pg=PT207#v=onepage&q&f=false. or from "Holocaust Chronicles: Individualizing the Holocaust Through Diaries" (edited by Robert Moses Shapiro) or other sources.

I'm not comfortable adding information about general life in the ghetto (which is what I think you're asking me to add since looking at the mentions of Gens from Laskins' book on googlebooks doesn't show anything new not mentioned in the article) as that information should properly go in the article on the ghetto. And taking information from diaries/chronicles would be using primary sources - which we're not supposed to rely on.
*I am not saying that tons of daily life details should be added, just that, as one is reading the article, the narrative is moving along, July 1943 is mentioned and then, all of a sudden, "the Germans" ordered Gens to report to Gestapo HQ. Who ordered him to report? Why was he told to report? are questions without answers at this point. Also, primary sources are not unilaterally prohibited. WP:PRIMARY states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia,..." and WP:ANALYSIS says that "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources..." Both of the above sources are not facsimile editions of diaries, they include editorial statements and conclusions.
I will be frank - I'm not seeing anything in the google books preview of the first that isn't in the article (except maybe the name of Kittel). I've already spent close to $100 getting sources for this article ... I'm not really inclined to spend more money unless I have a good idea of what exactly you're looking for that is contained within those books. As for why the name of who told him to report isn't in there - I have conflicting sources. Both Schneidman and Tushet give a different person (Neugebauer) as the person who ordered Gens to report to the Gestapo headquarters. Gilbert, citing different sources, just states that the Gestapo ordered him to their headquarters. And the book listed above gives Kittel as the Gestapo chief who ordered Gens there. In the interest of simplicty (this IS a GA nom, not an FAC), I settled for the summary of the not naming this bit of trivia of who ordered him to the HQ. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, sources do differ on this point that is true. As to who ordered Gens to the HQ...One man's trivia is another man's killer I suppose. Moving on...
After my most-recent read through, I think that the article has an over-usage of the term "the Germans" ("The Germans appointed him,,,", "the Germans ordered the creation...", "the Germans murdered..." and so on). The people who did all these things were Nazis, or members of the Gestapo or collaborators, they weren't just "the Germans".. And many of the Jews in the Ghetto were Germans as well. I think it is important to delineate the difference.
I haven't used "Nazis" because we can't be sure that many of the people were Nazis - see Christopher Browning's work on the functionaries who worked in the east - not all of them were Nazi party members. I could see a few changes to Gestapo, but Germans fits them all safely without assuming that someone was a Nazi party member or was a member of the Gestapo. As for the Vilnius ghetto containing German Jews, that's not true. They were Lithuanian Jews, not German Jews. Yes, a few German Jews were sent to eastern ghettoes, but as far as I know, not to Vilnius. I know some were sent to Warsaw/Lodz/Minsk, but all of the Jews in Vilnius' ghetto appear to have been Lithuanian (or perhaps other Baltic Jews). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to give you an extreme example of what I am referring to...

The term is unnecessarily used within a single sentence or in close proximity to another use of the term. When the term is used again and then the term is used again without perhaps changing to an appropriate pronoun like "it" or "them", then the term becomes the term's own worst enemy.

I can see your point about being correct in the terminology used for whichever group, but I think some of "the Germans" could be replaced with the appropriate pronoun. For instance, this sentence: "During the deportations Gens tried to secure more work permits from the Germans but the Germans refused." should be changed to "During the deportations Gens tried to secure more work permits from the Germans but they refused." Also, if "the Gestapo" is an appropirate name to use for a group in a statement, please change those where you see fit.
Ah, I take your point on the repetition. I've gone through and changed some to "Gestapo/Occupying forces/them" etc as appropriate. Does that help? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
For the most part, lays out the facts of Gens' life dispassionately but I do think some of the content needs copy-editing.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I am wondering why local Gestapo chief Bruno Kittel, who ordered Gens to be shot, is not mentioned. The wording in "Death & legacy" is problematic.
Bruno Kittel had more to do with Gens' daily life in Gens' final months than the man who killed him. Why is he not mentioned?
Because he's not mentioned in the two main biographies of Gens as being central to Gens' last months. That would be Shneidman and Tushet. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been explained to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Are there any photos of Gens? Maybe a photo of where he grew up, or sketches of photos of Vilnius ghetto... I did find this file on Commons: File:Ghetto jacob gens selbstmordversuch.jpg

There are photos, but their copyright status is unclear and I'm not comfortable digging into the problems of figuring out whether they are still under copyright or not. I have seen that drawing, but I'm not clear on what it attempting to portray - the image of Gens being almost shot seems a bit NPOV to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about that sketch. I would assume it was done after the fact as an "interpretation" of the event, somewhat akin to Currie & Ives rendition of Booth's assassination of Lincoln (as seen in File:Assassination of President Lincoln.jpg).
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Well-written dispassionate account of the main points of a man's life, compete with the controversy about his time in the Vilnius ghetto. The only improvement might be to possibly flesh out some details of Gens life in those last few months (between July 1943 and September 1943), and possibly provide some more details about the occupying forces' actions those last few months. (I don't even know if it is possible, considering the records that are available...just wondering who ordered the ghetto to be completely shut-down etc. - but, then again, I am somewhat of a history nerd...) Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.