Talk:Adolf Eichmann/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Diannaa

This is an important article about a fascinating (and horrifying) individual. I will begin this review shortly. It may take a little longer than most reviews, due to the detail required. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to bring up issues as I find them, allowing you to work on them as I review, if you like. First off, let me say that the prose is excellent. Far beyond the "clear and concise" standard for GAs, the sections I've examined are up to our exacting FA standards. I've made a few copy-edits on very minor issues, and I'll continue to do so; as always, feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of my changes.

Resolved issues

• I have some questions about Jewish emigration as described in the "Early career" section.
  • Most glaringly, one paragraph says "By 1939 around 250,000 of Germany's 437,000 Jews emigrated", but a different paragraph claims "By the time he left Vienna in May 1939, nearly 100,000 Jews had legally left the country [Austria] (far more than had departed from Germany)". How do we reconsile that?
    • The statistics refer to two different time periods. More Jews left Austria during the period Eichmann was there than left Germany in the same period. The statistic from Longerich and Evans refers to the period 1933 to the end of 1939. I am removing the phrase "far more than had departed from Germany"; it's confusing and unneccessary. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • When the text says "Eichmann was assigned to Vienna to help organise Jewish emigration in Austria", that should probably say "from Austria", since they weren't coming in. Y
  • This is more for my benefit, but... I don't understand why Hagan refused to increase Jewish emigration via the Haavara Agreement. Everything else in the article indicates that the Nazis wanted as many Jews as possible to leave Germany. The stated reason for Hagan's refusal is that "the resulting transfer of Jewish capital to Palestine would strengthen the Jewish presence there, which was contrary to the interests of the Reich", but that's confusing, since the Haavara Agreement "forced [Jews] to give up most of their possessions to Germany before departing" according to that article. And since Palestine was a British possession, it's not obvious to me why the Reich would be displeased with Jewish presence there. Maybe I'm just not understanding what Germany's goals were here.
    • The Nazis were opposed to an independent Jewish state being created in the area. I will re-word. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! All these issues have been cleared up. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hatnotes like "Main article: Nisko Plan" should really only be at the top of sections. It shouldn't be in the middle of a section, but it really doesn't belong at the top of the World War II section either. You could create a Nisko Plan section and put it at the top of it, or you could just link to Nisko Plan in text and omit the hatnote. Y Fixed.

• The "West German government attempts to influence the trial" section is problematic. It uses a single source (a Spiegel article) which is not used in the rest of the article. It smacks of recentism: a sensational 2011 article reveals questionable government activities, and several people want to make sure the information is included prominently in Wikipedia. But it's only tangential to Eichmann; it more concerns Globke and Vogel. I don't doubt that it's true, but it seems like undue weight to give it its own section, with more of the article devoted to it than to Eichmann's schooling or his wife. In my view, the entire section should be omitted, with perhaps a brief summary included in the "trial" section, if you think that would be valuable. Y I think it's best to remove it. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• The "BND and CIA information" has similar problems. I see from the article's history that it was originally added to strongly suggest that the U.S. had known where Eichmann was hiding and did nothing; the sources were newspaper articles from 2006 with titles like "C.I.A. Knew Where Eichmann Was Hiding" and "Documents show post-war CIA covered up Nazi war crimes". But the impact was weakened with the addition of clearer facts, official statements, and a later peer-reviewed assessment, and now the section is rather difficult to follow. The reader's experience is something like this: "Here's a bizarre statement in an obscure 1958 memo. Here's a claim that this means the U.S. covered for Eichmann. Here are some damning and attention-getting facts about modern governments collaborating with ex-Nazis. Here are alternating statements leading me to believe that the issue is serious or not serious." But really, in terms of an article on Eichmann himself, this deserves a footnote at most. It doesn't deserve an entire section with the article's second-longest block quotation. As above, I would recommend omitting the entire section, and perhaps briefly summarizing the info in a preceding section.Y I have snipped out the two sections. I think both of these can safely be omitted as they're only peripherally about Eichmann. I have made a replacement paragraph and parked it at User:Diannaa/sandbox to think about, but the article is probably better off without this content. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's too bad we don't have a good, English-language map of the General Goverment and Nisko, showing its relation to Vienna, Ostrava, and Katowice. (The current map, in German, shows the General Government, but it's difficult to tell what we're looking at.) Do you think it would be better to use File:General Government (1942).svg? It's clear and more comprehensible... but it shows the region in 1942, and it seems to have expanded Eastward by then. Of course, the best option would be to convince one of our map-makers to create something ideal, but that's not required for GA status. Barring that, is the map we're using the best choice?
  • I have found an alternative in English! File:General Government for the occupied Polish territories.png. See what you think. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't perfect—it includes Galizien, and it doesn't clearly label Nisko—but I think it's the best we have. Thanks for finding it! – Quadell ^(talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• When the text says "The people they were sent to rescue refused to leave, but they did assist...", the reader might not know whether that last "they" refers to the 10,000 ethnic Germans, or to Eichmann's commando squad. Y reworded. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• A recent edit by Cliftonian split a long paragraph in the lead, and it now has five paragraphs. I'm really not sure what the best way to handle this is. I think the lead is an appropriate length and is well written, but WP:LEAD says a lead "should normally be no more than four paragraphs", but that it "should avoid lengthy paragraphs". These aren't unbreakable rules, but I've never passed a GAN with five paragraphs before. Look over the lead and see what you can do.
  • I think we can combine the last two paragraphs, as the material all concerns post-war events. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• The statement "In May 2007, a student..." seems out of place to me. Consider making that fact a part of footnote [c], and moving that footnote to the mention of the "humanitarian passport", above. Y

• The reference to "Eichmann's brother Otto" surprises me, though no change may be needed. Otto Adolf Eichmann had a brother also named Otto? Are you sure this is correct? (I don't have access to Walters.)
  • Walters shows the brother's name as Otto on page 282. Levy lists an Otto among Eichmann's brothers on page 149 and Cesarani on page 19. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, well thanks for doublechecking for me. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the "International dispute over capture" section, like other sections previously mentioned, suffers from undue weight. (I wonder if there shouldn't be a separate Trial of Adolf Eichmann article (currently a redirect) or Capture and trial of Adolf Eichmann article that includes all these details?) I don't think the section needs to be fully removed, but perhaps the material could be shortened somewhat and added as a final paragraph of the "Capture in Argentina" section? For instance, the obviously false claim by Meir made directly after the announcement is not notable in Eichmann's biography, and the details of Israel and Argentina negotiations could be summarized in a single sentence. What do you think?
  • The trial was a really big deal and I think we should have an article on it someday. For now I have shortened this material and added it to the section above as suggested. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• The "Impact" section seems to concern the impact of the trial and exectution, not the impact of Eichmann himself, and so should be a subsection of "Trial".
  • Done. Do you think the section header should be changed to "Impact of the trial" or left as-is? -- Diannaa (talk)

Either would be fine, though I'd be inclined to leave it as "Impact", personally. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Should the initial four paragraphs of the "World War II" section be their own subsection? And should it be called "Central Office for Jewish Emigration", "Management of Jewish deportation", "Rise in leadership", "Expulsion of Jews from Poland", or something else altogether?
  • I have used "Transition from emigration to deportation". Let me know what you think. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Robert Servatius did have a doctorate, but so did nearly everyone involved with the trial; I don't think the "Dr" prefix is warranted. Y

• In any article on a controversial subject (especially one that involves Israel or Palestine in any way), there are likely to be "gotcha" statements that were added mainly to make one group, country, or organization look bad. I set a high bar for these—not that we should protect any organization from criticism, but that we should keep the article focused and curtail any attempt to hijack an article of this importance for other purposes. (I think we're on the same page here.) So it's fair to mention that the Holocaust killed 5-6 million Jews, even if Eichmann didn't do all that himself, and even though that statement makes Nazi Germany look bad, because it's crucial to understand the impact of the Holocaust in order to fully understand Eichmann. On the other hand, tangentially-related statements that make the U.S. or Germany or Israel or whomever look bad should probably be omitted unless they're crucial to fully understanding Eichmann. I've mentioned several such "gotcha" statements previously, and I'm not sure I'm done rooting them out yet. Please carefully look over paragraph four of "Trial" with this in mind. Yes, we need to understand Eichmann's trial to fully understand Eichmann, and that means understanding irregularities or limitations of the trial itself. But any "gotcha" statements not clearly relevant should be omitted.

• Related: The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that a separate trial article is warranted. It would certainly be more appropriate to include the "gotcha"-style statements in an article on the trial itself. Even regarding details with no neutrality issues, much of the trial section could be summarized here with less detail, and fully specified it that separate article. After all, Eichmann's entire WWII career is given 1,832 words in this article (including all subsections), while his trial is given 1,977 words (including "Impact" with other subsections). Summary style would really help create balance. (Creating a separate page is not a GA requirement, but merely an idea for improvement.)
  • I am removing paragraph 4 of the Trial section. I have also trimmed a few peripheral details from elsewhere in the section to reduce its length and hopefully create better balance. I don't want to take out too much, as even if we create a sub-article it will likely be really lightly viewed; for example Erich von Manstein has 45,260 hits in the last 90 days and Trial of Erich von Manstein only has 915. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• The "See also" section should usually not contain articles that are linked in the body. History of the Jews in Hungary is already used as a section hatnote, and Rudolf Kastner is linked directly, so these shouldn't be in the "See also" section. Further, we need to be careful in the selection of which articles are listed. Why is Emanuel Schäfer included, but not any other prominent Nazis? I would recommend omitting, since he's already listed at List of SS personnel. Y

• There seem to be a few more "gotcha" statements regarding the films Un spécialiste and Eichmann. Only include those if you find them necessary to fully understand the man. (Articles on the films themselves should fully explore the controversy, but this should only be the place for such debate when it's particularly relevant.) Y Removing section; see below. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• The "Books and films" section should really be about all of the most important books and films about Eichmann. Currently, the only entries are about his abduction and trial. We should not list every book or film about WWII that mentions Eichmann, obviously, but if we keep this section then it should have the most important books or films about him in any period of his life.
  • Other than the books used as sources, that's really all there is. I think the section can be removed altogether per WP:MILPOP – that's the way I am going to go. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose the section was strictly necessary, so I suppose it's fine to undo the Gordian Knot that way. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Optional: In my opinion, the most recent copy-edits to the lead improved some aspects, but reduced the quality of the prose in other ways. There are many sentences with too many "comma-where", "comma-and", and "comma-which" clauses strung together. (See in particular the first two sentences of the second paragraph.) This is not a problem for GA status, but if you intend to submit this for featured status (and I hope you do!), you may want to give the lead another look.
  • I have partially reverted the amendments to the lead (Sorry Cliftonian, I agree that some aspects were better before). -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current lead is the best synthesis of both your edits. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• (See also: Cliftonian's point about Eichmann's marriage, below.)Y

I'm very pleased with the state of this article. Once the final issues are resolved, I'll be delighted to promote it. I'll put it on hold now, and I look forward to your responses. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Intrusion by Cliftonian

I hope neither of you mind, but I have made a few minor alterations during the review; nothing major, mostly just formatting, some minor copy-editing and the like. I just had a suggestion to make I thought I might note here: do either of you think it's worth mentioning that Landau, Halevy and Raveh, the three judges at the trial, were all, like Eichmann, German-born? If so, perhaps we might add a footnote mentioning that all three immigrated to Palestine in 1933 after the Nazis came to power. Perhaps not directly relevant but I think it adds an interesting dimension. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true they were all fluent in German and did not have to wait for the translation, which was just as well, as apparently the German→Hebrew translation was dreadful. But these details are probably best left to a separate possible future article about the trial. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, just thought I'd mention it. Great work on the article so far! —Cliftonian (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I gotta go to the gym now so if you want to do some more copy edits now is a good time. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. I'm glad you feel I'm being helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for both your edits and your inputs. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• His wife's name is given in the infobox as Vera and in the body as Veronika; this should probably be consistent (easily rectified by changing the body to say Veronika "Vera" Liebl, if Vera was short for Veronika). Also I presume they remained married until his death? Would be good for the infobox to put that —Cliftonian (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Y fixed

  My name's Quadell, and I endorse this message. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  Amendments complete, thanks so much. Let me know if there's anything that got missed. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Final assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

It is quite a challenge to write a comprehensive, balanced article on such a notorious and important historical figure. I'm proud to have been a part of it, and I hope the article becomes featured some day soon.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is brilliant. The MoS is followed in detail.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is impeccably sourced, and the "References" section is beautifully formatted.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Impressive work was done to make sure the article is free from tangents or focus problems. The article is reasonably comprehensive.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   After much work and thought, I feel this article conforms to our NPOV policy.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems at this time.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Most images are legitimately free, and the non-free lead image is used appropriately. All captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm delighted to promote this article to GA status. Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind words and for your assistance in improving this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)