Talk:Sonderbehandlung

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonderbehandlung/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (話) 20:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments and concerns

I am glad to find this article to be very well researched and well written. I have a few small concerns about this article that I would like to have addressed before I pass this article for review:

1. In the the first sentence in the section "Sensitivity": "Heinrich Himmler became increasingly sensitive to the security of...", I think the word "sensitive" may be too vague since the word has multiple meanings. I would prefer to have a more specific term like "he was concerned about the security" or something similar.

•  Done WilliamH (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2. The the placement of section "Purpose" at the end of the article seems a bit strange to me. In most articles, the purpose of the topic is usually one of the first sections. Being that there are only 2 paragraphs, they could be merged into different sections. Both could probably fit in the section "Usage". The paragraph with Lang's quote is significant enough that it could also be added to the lead.

I will place the review on hold until an editor has addressed these concerns. --Tea with toast (話) 21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Lang's quote has been moved to the lead, and I've moved van Pelt's comment on the staff at Auschwitz to the end of the section on Auschwitz, where I think it forms a good concluding paragraph. WilliamH (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Final assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great job! This has been a very interesting and informative article to review. --Tea with toast (話) 00:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic shortcomings

This article has several translational inaccuracies and mistakes, which I can testify to being a native german speaker. Even the first line has two: The abbreviation S.B. has likely been common within the Nazi administration, but I doubt it was in common usage of general german speakers even at the time. In no way it is common nowadays. The verb "sonderbehandeln" is a theoretical construction, it does NOT exist in the actual german language. I cannot think of any proper german sentence utilising it, neither spoken nor written german.

The section "Background" tries to highlight the usage of euphemisms. This calls for exceedingly accurate translations of the words in question; the usual slightly sloppy translations which are OK in other situations tend to blur the euphemistic character of the words:

"desinfiziert" is just "disinfected", or "sanitised". "decontaminated" is just plainly wrong. I know it has been used in many places, but with the given aim we need to be more accurate.

"Aussiedlung" is much more euphemistic than "expulsion", as the german word lacks the connotations of force. Even though technically the translation is correct, for the reason given above a better translation is required. I don't know a better word, maybe an explaining phrase is in order.

Translating "Ausschaltung" by "elimination" suffers from the same issue. "Ausschaltung" is from "ausschalten", which means "to switch off", not "to eliminate". "Einen Gegner ausschalten" means to "disable an adversary". A more suitable translation therefore may be "disabling".

I would have liked to see how the last one was treated in the source, but phdn.org does not have that page anymore. This also needs a fix. --WikiPidi (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Image of bus and caption

The caption indicates it was used or intended to be used to kill. It is just a common bus with no modifications, so the caption should reflect it as such. Curtless x (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wyk1ng's concern

There is this paragraph currently in the article:

This has been compared to another incident of self-verification in the opposite way, where Josef Goebbels, in his Total War speech on February 18, 1943, begins to say "Ausrottung des Judentums" ("extermination of Jewry") but switches to saying "Ausschaltung", bearing in mind that he is speaking very publicly.[7] His resulting phrasing is "Ausrott... schaltung des Judentums", which can be likened to "exterm... elimination" in English.[7]

The actual Sportpalast Speech is just 2 clicks away and can be searched/skimmed in under a minute. As you can see if you actually do this, NOWHERE in the entire Sportpalast speech is any mention of this posted quote. Therefore this should be removed. Wyk1ng (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note I have changed the section heading to something more appropriate. The above user has been blocked indefinitely. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)