Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [1].

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz[edit]

Nominator(s): buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This event, described as "one of the most bizarre escapes" of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help a Jewish Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee, Siegfried Lederer, went on to smuggle weapons into the Theresienstadt Ghetto.

The article recently passed an A-class review. I'd like to thank everyone who has offered comments so far, including Gog the Mild, Sturmvogel 66, Peacemaker67, and HJ Mitchell. The source review at the A-class nomination should be sufficient, but additional image review is needed since some images were added. I'm hoping to get this at TFA for the 75th anniversary of the escape, which is 5 April. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just on those images; there certainly are plenty, but as a result you now have MOS:SANDWICH issues. At minimum they require rearrangement, but perhaps consider whether you need some of the slightly more tangential images. Good luck with this in any case. ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks, I think I have fixed this issue. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Righto; there's also a couple of locations missing from your bibliog—worth a double check. ——SerialNumber54129 22:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked, and the only locations missing are for two academic journal articles, for which location is not typically provided. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image review. I'm not sure what you mean by "firsthand source". I consulted the publication Zdrazilova (an open-access master's thesis linked in the image description), who credited the photo to Vlcova's publication. Other than that, I don't know anything about the provenance of the image.
Firsthand source means the original source of the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both non-free images could use a better WP:NFCC#8 description as the case for "without this image the article would be much poorer" isn't very strong.
I've removed one of the non-free images. It was decided that Lederer would not get his own article for WP:BIO1E reasons, so for all intents and purposes this is is his biography. Including fair use images in biographical articles is standard, so I'm not sure how the fair use rationale could be improved.
Well, that would be a problem, because while a fair use photo is OK on a biography article, it has often been held to be inappropriate for an article that includes biographical information but isn't a biography per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Removed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like they are all pertinent and well licensed, beyond these two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Placeholder. It's a'coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the two Kárný publications are journal articles, then WP:HOWCITE#Journal articles suggests that the titles should be quotation marks, not in italics; if they aren't they need publishers and locations.
These are journal articles. It appears that a bot changed them to {{cite book}}. I changed them back, but is there a way to bot-proof it?
I have had that problem. I shall look back as to what I did about it. Meanwhile, passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Disclosure: I assessed this article for GA, commented on it at ACR and carried out the source review at ACR. At ACR I mentioned a number of areas where it might be improved for FAC.

  • "The story of the escape was retold and exaggerated by Lederer and writers including Erich Kulka." Could we be told who Erich Kulka is? Eg 'including historian Erich Kulka'.
  • "Pestek's father was a blacksmith and a small farmer; he learned these trades as a young man." Who learnt "these trades as a young man"? Pestek's father or Pestek?
  • "Auschwitz guard Stefan Baretzki grew up in the same town; he and Pestek were acquaintances as children." This seems out of chronological order. It would make more sense to move it one sentence earlier.
  • Caption of BIIb block Birkenau aerial photograph: the area high lighted would seem to be to the right of the cantre line.
The caption was confusing because it it discusses two parts of the camp, BIIb and BIId, but only one is highlighted. I fixed this by creating uploading a new version with both highlighted (same permissions). LMK what you think.
That's much clearer. Thanks.
  • "Jews transported from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz between September 1943 and May 1944 were established in a separate block". "established seems an inappropriate word. 'housed'?
  • Cites. When you have two or more cites together, they should be in number order. EG, with "On 8 March 1944, exactly six months from their arrival, the Jews from the family camp who had arrived in September were all gassed without a selection to find those able to work.[19][11] " the [11] should be before the [9], etc.
  • "Jewish girls in the family camp were a popular target for the sexual attention of SS men" Assuming that this means what I suppose it does, then 1) should "girls" be 'young women', or at least 'girls and young women'? 2) With the phrase "target for the sexual attention" are you WP:CENSORing? (A genuinely open question.) The way it is phrased, it sounds (to me) almost genteel.
Edited this—LMK what you think. For the record, the source for this reads Esesácké stráže dostaly instrukce, aby se k těmto vězňům chovaly shovívavěji nežli v jiných táborech, což způsobilo, že i SS-mani nabyli casem jisty vztah k vězňům z Terezina – zejména k ženám. Dávali jim přednost před dohola ostříhanými ženami z ostatních táborů. which translates roughly to "The SS guards had been instructed to treat the prisoners of the family camp more favorably than other prisoners. As a result, some guards formed relationships with the family camp prisoners, especially the women. They preferred the women in the family camp to the bald women in the other parts of the camp." Unfortunately, other sources do not elaborate on this aspect.
OK. You have faithfully adhered to your sources. Not a lot else you can do, whatever our sordid suspicions may be.
  • "Pestek also approached the Czech Josef Neumann" Suggestion only: insert 'unsuccessfully'

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have actioned all of the above. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good. I shall go through the rest as soon as I am able. To me it is looking pretty good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the front gate, Pestek gave the correct passwords and told the other guards Lederer was on special duty, and both men bicycled out of the gate." Optional. Is there some way to avoid having "and" in this sentence twice?
  • "They went to the railway station outside Auschwitz and caught a train to Prague, avoiding border control by pretending to be luggage inspectors and intimidating the Czech officials." Did they intimidate the Czechs by pretending to be luggage inspectors, or were there two separate methods employed to avoid the border controls?
  • The last paragraph of the section "Breaking into Theresienstadt" may not meet criterion 4 " It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Could you reread the section and let me know what you think?
  • Note 4. "Grünberger's report spread as a rumor through Theresienstadt but many people refused to believe him." "him" -> 'it'?

And that's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of the above. The point about the last paragraph in the "Breaking into Theresienstadt" is a valid one. I cut down a few sentences, but I do think that it's important to discuss why his report had so little impact. buidhe 21:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weell, I feel that this drifts away from the topic of the article, but I can see that its a judgement call and I wouldn't want to quibble over such a fine article. Supporting. Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67[edit]

I went through this article in detail during the Milhist A-Class review, and consider it now meets the Featured criteria. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from KJP1[edit]

A very interesting story. Some comments below:

Lead and infobox
  • "Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz" - is it accurate to describe Pestek as "escaping"? Given that he was entitled to, and applied for, leave I'm not sure he can accurately be said to have escaped.
  • My reasoning was that Pestek had to known that if he were caught helping Lederer, he would be considered a traitor. Therefore, if he helped Lederer to escape, he was in danger of prosecution (and execution) and it's appropriate to describe his exit as an escape. But I'm open to alternate title suggestions if you have a better idea.
  • "Because of his Catholic faith and infatuation with Renée Neumann, a Jewish prisoner, Pestek opposed the Holocaust" - The section on Pestek says that "The humanity of his enemy ... brought him into conflict with the genocidal German policies". That seems to be three reasons, rather than the two given in the lead.
  • Right, the lede is supposed to be a summary and I don't think we could concisely explain this incident there.
  • "despite facing antisemitic persecution from the Communist government" - I'm not seeing this covered in the Afterward section, where one would expect it. Lead material should be covered/expanded upon in the body of the article.
  • Yes, we had to take it out due to not having an RS for it. Removed from lede.
  • "The story of the escape was retold and exaggerated by Lederer" - so Karny suggests, in the Assessment section. But Bauer/Kulka (and Koltatra?) appear to suggest not. I think a caveat (some suggest exaggeration) may be necessary as I'm not clear that the sources support a definite statement in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Removed mention of exaggeration in the lede.
  • "Gate of the "family camp" at Birkenau" - will captioning the infobox lead image simply as Birkenau, as opposed to Auschwitz or Auschwitz II–Birkenau, lead to confusion?
  • I wouldn't have thought so, but changed it to Auschwitz II–Birkenau. The reason I used the abbreviated name is to avoid the line break.
Siegfried Lederer
  • "he moved to Plzeň and worked odd jobs" - this reads slightly oddly. "worked in a range of manual roles"? Better still, does the source say what as, labourer/bottlewasher?
  • Previous version had a note:

    According to Czech historian Miroslav Kárný, he worked as a fabric seller, in a kaolin factory, and as an agricultural laborer on multiple farms. Josef Černík, a leader in an organization for reserve officers in the Czechoslovak Army, helped Lederer get the farm work.

  • Changed to "worked various manual jobs, including agricultural work and a stint in a kaolin factory".
  • "aided those living underground" - I'm not sure I'm getting this. I'm assuming it means "helped those living in hiding" but I'm not sure.
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "He was arrested a third time" - do we know when?
  • Unfortunately, sources do not give a date for this.
  • "(Of the Jews deported from Theresienstadt before October 1942, more than 99% were killed)." - was this originally a footnote? I'm not sure why it's bracketed.
  • Yes. This inclusion made more sense in a previous draft which mentioned that some of his family members were deported, but we couldn't find an RS for that. Therefore, I've removed it.
Auschwitz-Background
  • "The Nazis, however, were planning to kill each group six months after their arrival" - which groups, "group(s) of arrivals"?
  • "Although he quickly developed a reputation for "organizing" (trading contraband)" - I'm not sure it helps to have a red link as the main term, which you then have to explain. Just "trading contraband"?
  • Done
  • "Some SS men formed relationships with Jewish women in the family camp because, unlike other prisoners, they had been allowed to keep their hair" - if that's what the source says, so be it, but it seems unlikely this was the sole reason. I see it's been discussed above.
  • Apparently: "They preferred the women in the family camp to the bald women in the other parts of the camp". See above for full quotation/translation of source.
Auschwitz-Escape
  • "Cierer and Pestek both spoke French to avoid being overheard" - I don't think speaking French would stop them being overheard. "understood"?
  • Done
  • "Cierer later shared his contacts with Lederer in hopes his escape would be successful" - "Cierer later shared his contacts with Lederer in the hope that his escape would be successful"?
  • Done
  • "They planned to escape with Lederer disguised as an SS man" - I get a bit confused here. Firstly, I think the "they" is Lederer and Pestek, not Neumann even though she is mentioned immediately before? Then the next five lines describe their planned return to Auschwitz after their escape. So, maybe some thing like, "Pestek and Lederer planned their escape, and their intended return to rescue Neumann, in considerable detail. Lederer would leave disguised as an SS man. After obtaining false documents..."?
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "Another telegram four hours later reported that an SS man—presumably Pestek—was being investigated as a suspect" - not clear to me. Pestek obviously isn't being investigated in person, as he's on the way to Prague. Perhaps, "Another telegram four hours later reported that an SS man—presumably Pestek—was under suspicion as a suspect"?
  • Done
Aftermath-Obtaining false papers
  • "She also told them of Faltys" - do we have a first name for Faltys?
  • Unfortunately, no.
Aftermath-Breaking into Theresienstadt
  • Note 4 begins "According to Baeck's testimony after the war, an unknown Mischling had been deported directly to Auschwitz". But, in the previous section, we learn that Brigitta Steiner's Mischling status "prevented her deportation". The Mischling article perhaps provides a partial explanation, Mischling from Eastern Europe appear to have been considered as Jews?, but it's not that clear to me. In any event, I don't think we need the second blue linking.
  • The blue link was added to the note per request from a previous editor. If a Mischling's non Jewish parent was Czech, they were deported, but if the parent was German they would typically not be, as was explained in a note in the previous version. However, I'm not sure if that would be relevant to include in this article.
  • "Václav Veselý, a barber, told him how to sneak past the sentries of the ghetto" - is "evade" more encyclopedic?
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "until he or she was standing on the Judenrampe and undergoing selection" - I think Judenrampe needs explanation, in the absence of a link. Auschwitz station platform"?
  • The mention is unnecessary in this context, removed.
  • "Explaining the weak reaction to the possibility of imminent death" - to me, "weak" expresses a viewpoint which, in the absence of a supporting source, would be better left out.
  • Removed
Aftermath - Return to Auschwitz
  • "Josef Neumann said he had been approached by an unknown SS man" - have we met Neumann before. If not, does he need a short intro?
  • He was mentioned earlier.
  • "Stefan Baretzki, who knew Pestek well, testified that Pestek had been arrested" - when? At a subsequent inquiry/trial? And do we need to be told Baretzki is a guard?
  • Mentioned that Baretzki was a guard. According to Langbein, some of these testimonies were given at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials but he does not specify where Baretzki's testimony came from. (OR alert: I suspect that it was personal communication. Langbein visited Baretzki in jail on multiple occasions and got a lot of useful information out of him; see Baretzki's article).
Aftermath-Afterwards
  • See comment in lead re. antisemitic persecution.
Assessment
  • "Pestek is not recognized as "Righteous Among the Nations" by Yad Vashem" - do we know whether this is as a result of his case being considered and rejected, or not being considered?
  • Yad Vashem does not typically disclose this information. (OR alert: I doubt that Yad Vashem, if petitioned, would award him that status. He doesn't meet the criteria because he was involved in war crimes both during anti-partisan operations and later as an Auschwitz guard.)
References
  • No.14 - is this "442 to 446", in which case it needs a dash, or 442 and 446, in which case it's fine?
  • The two separate pages.

I hope the above doesn't come across as too critical. I know the work and time that goes into preparing an FAC. It's an interesting story and you've obviously worked hard to identify all the available sources. But I do think there are some areas where clarification/some expansion is necessary. Let me know if any of the comments are unclear. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thanks for your comments. I think I have explained and/or resolved everything, let me know what you think. (here's the diff). buidhe 14:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the super-fast turnaround. And for the very helpful amendments/clarifications/explanations. And lastly for the article itself, which was fascinating and which led me off on a trail of very interesting blue links. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN[edit]

I'm minded to support—the article's clearly of sufficient quality—but I wonder if the name should be tweaked? as it stands, the total length is 3651 words; over half of that is not the escape itself, but rather the "Aftermath", at 1933 words. Shall we consider a title which indicates that? ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Serial Number 54129: I can see your point, although by my count there's only 1559 words in the aftermath (the "Assessment" section focuses more on the perceptions of the escape). My reasoning for this being an appropriate title is that it essentially covers one event, the lead-up to it, and the fallout. Essentially all of the events described in the "Aftermath" would not have happened without the escape. Having given the matter some thought, I haven't come up with a better idea for a title. Do you have any suggestions? buidhe 15:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not especially, no. It's certainly not a major malfunction  :) another (small) thing, is the use of forenames important? It would be tighter without; but, again, it's also not that important. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It never occurred to me to drop the first names. I do not feel strongly about it, but as far as I can tell, most nonfiction books on Google Books discussing the escape of a particular person use the full name. buidhe 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This time, I was thinking (for once!) of the MoS rather than the sources, as it goes. ——SerialNumber54129 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think you'll find this with a lot of articles about events. The more significant the event, the more words are devoted to telling the reader why it's important and what it affected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: FYI all, I'm supporting this candidate now as my questions were answered civilly and the only pertinent issue—that of the actual page title—has a consensus to wait until after the promotion. ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • Support. Extremely interesting and well-put together piece, and I think you for bringing it to FAC. There are three very minor points that do not affect my support, but that you should consider:
    • (Background): "group of arrivals six months after their arrival" (and that is in addition to another "arrival" a line or two up): best use a synonym for one of them
    • (Assessment): "escapes of World War II by historian Alan J. Levine,[62] Lederer's escape". Same as above, particularly as there are four in that paragraph: change one of them to "flight" or similar
    • The pseudo-headings of "Original quotes", "Print sources" and "Web sources" should be done as sub-headings, not just by bolding (per MOS:HEADINGS and MOS:BOLD)

Aside from those very minor points, this seems to me to fit the FAC criteria as far as I can tell and I happily support its promotion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I should have addressed all of them. buidhe 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC

Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • Pestek also approached the Czech Josef Neumann (not a relative of Renée Neumann)[12] a kapo on the Leichenkommando – is here a comma missing?
  • I tried to find more issues, but failed. Great read. Supporting right away. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Comma added. buidhe 21:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

We seem to be almost done here but as this would be the nominator's first FA, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- I realise this could be a challenge as most of the refs are books and some of those aren't in English, but let's see what we can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dank[edit]

  • "Escape of Viktor Pestek" in the article title feels wrong to me. Guards don't generally escape from a prison, they desert or go AWOL. And this guard was ultimately caught and executed at the prison, so "Escape" will initially lead readers to exactly the wrong conclusion. Also, complex article titles, particularly for Featured Articles, are frowned on. My vote would be "Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz". - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Reading a comment above ... if he applied for leave, then "escape of Viktor Pestek" is a bigger problem than I thought; I'll be taking the article to WP:RM if it passes FAC with this title. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC) @Jens Lallensack, Gog the Mild, Peacemaker67, KJP1, Serial Number 54129, and SchroCat: Any objections to "Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz" for the title? The current title may cause problems at WP:ERRORS when this gets to the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So ... no objections, then? @FAC coordinators: Is it easier for you guys if we move the page after or before promotion? - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just being pragmatic, it is certainly easier after the FAC is done and dusted. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check[edit]

Picking up on Ian's request for a spot check, let's see what we can manage with what we've got. I can't cover the German or Czech sources, but can get most of the English sources. Buidhe, I'll ping you a list of pages I can't access - could you scan and email them over? Thanks

Checking that the content is supported by citations; no close paraphrasing from the original; and that quoted material is as it appears in the source.

  • Housden
    • FN 41 – 3 cites – OK
  • Kulka
    • FN 15 – OK
    • FN 58 – OK
    • FN 66 – OK
    • FN 67 – OK
  • Linn
    • FN 21 – 2 cites. A is OK, B isn't: pp 15–16 don't cover the "Lederer's flight was overshadowed by that of Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler five days later". That is pp 16–17, although the source says two days, not five. Text changed to "two"; reference changed to "pp. 16-17" and moved. The information about the report needs to be sourced to a later page (I only have limited preview on Google books, so can't tell which page) New reference introduced to cite the Vrba and Wetzler report.
    • FN 43 – 3 cites. All OK

More to come shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Levine
    • FN 18 – OK
    • FN 27 – OK
    • FN 30 (3 cites) – OK
    • FN 52 (2 cites) – OK
    • FN 62 – OK
  • Done for now - Buidhe, I'll drop you an email with requests for a couple of others. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are we going with this request? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Ian, Buidhe hasn't edited since 9 February and I haven't heard back from him on email either. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: She  :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops – my apologies to the lady! - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, the relatively minor points above addressed. Probably best to await Ian's view before emailing me the others.
Hi Gog, There was only one more source I wanted to check, which was Kulka 1965, pp. 192, 193, 199. Are you able to access these three pages? If so I'll pop over an email and you can send over what you can. That's all that's holding this one up, so if there is anyone else who can access them, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Only in snippet view, but this seems to support cite 54 a - here - and b - here; part of the paragraph cite 15 covers is referenced by this, but the snippet runs out before one can see if the whole paragraph is covered by that page. I have no reason to suppose it doesn't, but will ask around to see if someone can scan and email me that page; page 192 isn't covered at all. I shall likewise see what other editors might have. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest asking those nice people at WP:RX. On the assumption the library's closed of course... ——SerialNumber54129 16:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RX have come back saying that I should have the two pages by the end of the week. SchroCat, should I just email them on to you? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: remember that special:EmailUser doesn't allow attachements to be sent though. ——SerialNumber54129 19:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I've emailed you with my address. If you could send them through when you get them, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"remember"? Having never used Wikipedia email, I didn't know in the first place. Thanks. It would seem that my query was unintentionally rhetorical. SchroCat, I have your email. Once the pages come I will let you know and we can work something out. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah  :) how they usually do it at RX—in case of futut reference—is, they will ask you to email them on wiki: they can then attach something in a replybut not in the original email. If you see what I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 19:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Thank you. That makes sense. So hopefully I can in turn attach to SchroCat's email and send them on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check continued
(Many thanks to Gog the Mild for obtaining scans of the relevant document)
  • Kulka 1965
    • FN 15 – OK
    • FN 41 (3 cites) – OK (I removed one citation that doesn't support a specific date, but that is already covered by another checked source
    • FN 54 (2 cites) – OK

Ian, there have been a couple of tweaks made to the cites checked, but these have been fairly minor points rather than anything that gives any concern. As far as I am concerned—bearing in mind I've only checked the English language sources—I've checked, this is a pass on the source check from me. Thanks again to Gog for stepping in, and well done to Buidhe for an excellent article: I hope there will be more of these to come in future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: ——SerialNumber54129 16:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the ping from Gav -- patience... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patience? WP:DGAF sums me up. But it's impossible to know know whether ohe has received a ping or not. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to help out[edit]

I have stepped in before to wrap up relatively minor points when a FAC nominating editor was not available for the final stage of the process and would be prepared to do so here. I am moderately familiar with the article having assessed it at GAN, ACR and above. I also did the ACR source review: obviously it was not as thorough as a first FAC source review is, but it was far from a wave through. I am not sure if that makes me more or less suitable, but no doubt Ian will advise on both this and the whole idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, do you have access to the Linn and Kulka sources? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Only in so far as they are on Google Books, but there are a couple of editors who may have who I would bounce specific queries at if they weren't covered by GB. (At ACR, a lower bar, it was about fifty fifty as to whether GB covered something when I didn't have the source.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem in principle with you stepping into the nominator's shoes to tide this one over, Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Escape_of_Viktor_Pestek_and_Siegfried_Lederer_from_Auschwitz/archive1&oldid=886233198"