Talk:Forced labour under German rule during World War II/GA1

GA Review

1. Well written?: - fail - Could be improved upon, for instance "The largest number of labour camps" could mean several things, perhaps "largest proportion" would be more accurate. 'Abducted in' would read better 'abducted from'. Some of the wording I think needs work, are the abductees slave labour or forced labour? Both terms are used in the article text, and an image caption. Some punctuation improvements would be good "The largest number of labor camps held civilians forcibly abducted in the occupied countries (see Łapanka) to provide labor in the German war industry, repair bombed railroads and bridges or work on farms." is a lengthy read, and the quotation marks in several places are incorrectly formatted on my browser, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks. There is no coherent use of numbering - see Wikipedia:MOSNUM and correct. Some text in the list is contained in square brackets but does not link anywhere. Change 'public conveniences' (or public transport) to 'some public amenities' or similar where relevant. Many improvements to grammar could be made, for instance "To this date, there are arguments that such settlement has never been fully completed and that Germany post-war development has been greatly aided, while the development of victim countries stalled" is quite poor English. Also, please separate and distinguish between "Germany", "Nazi", and "Reich" for the benefit of the reader. For these reasons this article is presently not well written and I would fail it on this point.

2. Factually accurate?: - pass

3. Broad in coverage?: - pass

4. Neutral point of view?: - fail - "regime wanted out of the way" in the Forced Workers section, "arbitrariness of the Gestapo" in the list in the same section (unless you provide a reference to demonstrate this attitude), "The German Forced Labour Compensation Programme was established only in 2000;" - remove the word only, or change the wording to demonstrate the reasons for the delay in compensation using factual information only.

5. Article stability? - pass

6. Images?: - pass - The image layout appears haphazard, but generally good - please see [[1]] for tips on improving layout. I would suggest standardising the size of all images, and reducing the amount of text in the captions. - pass

Overall a good article but it needs a fair bit of work to improve. For this reason, and because I don't feel it needs a major re-write, I am placing it on hold. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well written: The articles has been copyedited by several users (please see edit summaries). I am not a native speaker and I cannot find places that needs to be improved in terms of English language; the article reads fine to me. I will appreciate your help with that.

No problem - just give me a day or two, I've been away on holiday for the last week. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Per Protonk below, I don't think the first two formulations are non-neutral; I agree with the third one - removed world only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with those sections is the emotive way in which the Nazi system is being discussed. I don't feel its correct to suggest that the 'regime wanted out of the way', I'd rather read 'regime was actively removing as part of the 'final solution' ' or similar. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, I'm reviewing it as someone who finds such things interesting, so I would leave the correct wording to you - all I know is that I'd rather the reader be the judge of motive or intent, than the article. As for 'arbitrariness of the Gestapo' - why do they feel this way? You should let the reader know why this is so, so that they might better understand their motives and the subsequent plight of the forced laborers. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I don't think I have the time to rewrite the article now - too many things, including in RL - but I would support any edits that would make the article less emotional and more clear per your suggestions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk comments

Images Some image tags are depreciated (public domain works from the former soviet union. The two badge tags are confusing. I don't speak german, but they both claim to be from the same source (some german website), but one is copyrighted and the other is marked as fair use. I don't know the rules for derivative works very well. If the patches themselves were made in germany prior to the war, isn't a photo of the patches (and only the patches) PD too? Either way, there should be a reason why one is tagged a certain way and the other is tagged the "opposite" way.

Sourcing I'm curious as to the choice of the "major" source in this article. I'm not assailing its reliability, but suffice it to say it seems a little odd. It is a whitepaper from a think tank. What was the reason this source was chosen over a more traditional history of the subject? "It was on the internet" is a perfectly acceptable answer, BTW. :)

POV I disagree with the above assesment. The article isn't neutral, but the wording describing the gestapo and the reich is a minor quibble. My problem is that this subject is one that is extremely contentious--specifically the use of forced labor to help still-extant companies in Germany and abroad. I haven't dug through the history but I can say with the claims made in the article I am not impressed by the sourcing (for those SPECIFIC claims). The source (ref 4) resolves to a press release touting a list compiled and a NY times article. The article is pretty clear but does not make the claim that the text makes. "More than 2000 German companies profited from slave labor during the Nazi era, including Daimler-Benz, Deutsche Bank, Siemens, Volkswagen, Hoechst, Dresdner Bank, Krupp, Allianz, BASF, Bayer, BMW and Degussa." (from the text). "The 12 companies that announced their participation in the fund today were DaimlerChrysler, Deutsche Bank, Siemens, Volkswagen, Hoechst, Dresdner Bank, Krupp, Allianz, BASF, Bayer, BMW and Degussa. " From the article. I'm not arguing that those companies paying the settlement weren't culpable but (and this is vital) their inclusion in the NY times list has to do not with the degree of their culbability but with their market cap. Their inclusion in the article (with no reference to a settlement (in that paragraph) implies that among the 2000 companies who were involved, those were notable for their degree of involvement. That is an unacceptable claim. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove parts of it (and tag others), but I can't fix all of it tonight. The "corporate involvement" section needs to be rethought, heavily sourced and vetted before this can be a good article. Let me be clear. Companies, included american companies, profited from slave labor. Some even knew about it (or should have known). I'm not pushing this to attempt to "clear" anyone. But a lot of these companies are still around and we owe it to them and to the encyclopedia to be very precise and accurate.

Structure the "ladder" section is confusing to the reader.

Overall this article has some issues. Most important to me is the POV issue. The claims made by the reviewer above are important to the nomination and need to be resolved as well. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images. Copyright of WWII German photos is a pain, and unless an image is being deleted I prefer not to enter the boxing ring of copyright paranoids out there :)
The source was chosen as it was the most comprehensive work I could access (online, yes, but I did not find a similar useful summary in academic articles online, nor in books).
POV: I've added a source with the list of companies, and crossed all but two which I found on it (it is possible the others are under some name variant, though). I do agree that we should be careful - just as we are with BLP - not to slander companies, so thanks for pointing this part needed to be revised.
Ladder? What do you mean by that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder: "A class system was created amongst „Fremdarbeiter foreign workers“ brought to Germany to work for the Reich. The multi-layered system was based on layers of national hierarchies developed like a ladder." The section that follows that one.
Images. I know. But the specific point I raised (two pictures from the same source of the same thing with radically different licenses) needs to be fixed. As for the "paranoids" comment, I don't work much inWP:IFD or WP:PUI, but we should treat improperly attributed images with the same concern we treat improperly attributed text, copied in whole.
Sources. here are some:

Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder: I see what you mean, I hope the current version makes it more clear and less confusing.
Images: I don't know how to fix it, I am not a German copyright expert, and my experience has been that few users are - and most who deal with this err on the side of meta:copyright paranoia.
Sources. Thanks. Would you like to add them to the further readings? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images. Well, err on the side of caution. If you have one that is claimed PD and one Copyrighted from the same source, just switch the PD tag to copyright/fair use. If we make a mistake and it is really PD, no big deal. IF we make a mistake and claim something is PD when it is copyrighted, that is a problem. I would....umm....not follow the advice of that document at meta. There is no paranoia around lawyers. there is no reason to invite trouble.
Sources. I'll add them to the further reading, but I'd rather not. IMO further reading sections should be very discriminate. I placed them there as a suggestion to involved editors to use them in the bulk of the article. I would do it myself but (two reasons): I'm not that good at it and I can't pass you guys if I am significantly involved in the improvement. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my wiki code, I will pass on changing PD to fair use. I will not object if somebody else does so.
Since I am pressed for time now and cannot go through the sources, perhaps it would best for all if you could help us with improving the article, and then somebody else can review it again? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to promote this article for now

The review instructions give seven days to address the "on hold" concerns. I don't like sticking to that tooth and nail but it has been ~15 days since the first review. I'm going to delist this article. As always, this isn't a comment on the contributors or on the article itself. I'm sorry it wasn't promoted. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]