Talk:Massacre in Budy

GA review

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

Nominator: Galileo01 (talk · contribs) 09:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 23:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

On it. Czarking0 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Some of your comments are valid, and I will address over the coming weeks.

The one point that I do have to challenge though is the point around completeness: this article is the most complete description of the events of the night of October 5th 1942 in existence. The documentation completed by the Germans in October 1942 was destroyed in the same period. The events took place in the middle of nowhere, and the vast majority of the eye witnessess (victims and perpetrators) were killed then and there (precisely, between Oct 5th and Oct 24th 1942). This article is the grand sum of knowledge on the subject based on the published reliable sources. Thought I will share this important context. Galileo01 (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is a similar article I worked on. It also did not get GA but I think it was closer Malin massacre. Czarking0 (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Added as much as possible; detailed comments below, in the "comments" section. In general, I do believe (know) the article provides the widest possible coverage of the topic, due to lack of (destroyal of) documentation from the period. Best, Galileo01 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• cleaning ponds, demolishing houses, and building roads can you provide some more detail here? What does it mean to clean on pond? Also demolishing houses and building roads sounds like things that would occur outside the camp? So the women were being taken in and out on a regular basis?

  Yes, on a daily basis. Cleaning ponds means manual removal of vegetation using nets, rakes or specialist pond cleaning tools.

• Janina Nowak Is this a notable person? What else is there to say about her story?

  Added interwiki link. Her story in only tangentially connected with the massacre. IMO no need to add more detail here.

• prisoner functionaries what does this mean?

  Added relevant links.

• German women, mostly prostitutes and criminals likely a controversial claim, a second source could be warranted.

  Not controversial at all: it was a common practice that German convicts were functionary prisoners.

• The subcamp (penal camp) consisted of three buildings a map would make for appropriate image use

  It would be nice, yes; however, outside of my skillset.

• In the evening hours when? The body should be separate on from the lead.

  We don't know what time - tried to clarify in the article.

• Politische Abteilung (the camp’s Gestapo) this is using jargon to explain jargon. You should not assume that the reader understands what a camp Gestapo is.

  No assumption at all - blue link.

• Jewish prisoners would report their forbidden sexual relations with the so-called "green" (criminal) prisoner functionaries to the camp authorities. As a result, they decided to kill the Jewish prisoners This could use a lot more explanation. First, what is a "green" (criminal) prisoner functionaries. Second, if he thought this then wouldn't that indicate he knew there was sexual activity going on? Third, you are claiming that the functionaries' killed the victims rather than the SS? Is that the case?

  Fixed this tangled sentence.

• I get that the total number of victims is not known, but you should present the estimates and why they are reasonable estimates? Remember the lead and body are independent.

  Added same info in the body. No source elaborates on the methodology.

• The SS conducted an investigation into the massacre. As a result, on October 24, 1942, six prisoner functionaries, including the so-called "Queen of the Axe", Elfriede Schmidt, were executed by lethal injection of phenol directly into the heart. I mean there has got to be more to say about this. What was the point of the investigation? Who else was executed? Were reasons given?

  The documentation completed by the Germans in October 1942 was destroyed in the same period. The events took place in the middle of nowhere, and the vast majority of the eye witnessess (victims and perpetrators) were killed then and there (precisely, between Oct 5th and Oct 24th 1942).

• You should put the ref after the period throughout the article.

  Done.

• Rudolfa Höss's memoirs is too short to be a section. You should really make sure this quote is very closely translated. Do not add "" marks into the blockquote.

  Added more to that section. (responses from Galileo01 (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC))

  I wouldn't pass it either. I don't rely on sources from 1967(!) is there no new research? Does the encyclopedia of camps and ghettos or the German ort des terrors mention it? (t · c) buidhe 15:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Decision

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose needs work. Highlighted some issues above.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead body independence is not there. Layout issues highlighted above.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I did not check this as a I do not speak Polish.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Significant coverage issues mentioned above.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focus is not great but this is minor compared to rest of issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Did not review
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I think a map would help. Existing images are fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	Clear fail, I do not think this is able to be revised in a reasonable timeframe

Improving the article

Looking at Google Scholar and the article, so much content is about the sub camp and not the massacre in particular. Please consider renaming to Budy concentration camp and rewrite the article to be about the sub camp, mentioning the massacre that took place. This is a common approach when dealing with places known for specific massacres: for example Kaufering concentration camp or Blechhammer concentration camp. There significant amount of recent scholarship mentioning the camp (for example there should be entries in both the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos (free access) and Der Ort des Terrors (library) that's not cited, so I'm confident with that reorganization you could improve the sourcing and get it to be good article. Hope that helps Galileo01 (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate this, but I tend to disagree, and here's why. The articles you mentioned describe the ongoing terror of the concentration camps, but not particular single events. This article, however, focuses on a massacre that, even in its context (mistreatment of prisoners in concentration camps) was notable (see: Hoss's memoirs, the fact that the functionary prisoners were killed and documentation destroyed). Hence, it very much warrants its own article (similarly, Massacre of Feodosia and Gata massacre are standalone articles). The Budy subcamp, of course, also warrants its own article. However, it is a bigger topic, with a male section, female section, and then the penal colony. I don't believe good articles are measured in their size, but in the quality and completeness of content. Hope this is sensible. Galileo01 (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're citing sources from 1967 and can't find anything newer—plus the lack of records about the massacre—indicate that this article can't be expanded further. There's only about 500 words here about the massacre itself, which would be a better length for a section in another article than a standalone one. In addition, it adds maintenance overhead and costs the reader more time to repeat the information about the camp in the background section. You can argue that WP:NEVENT is met here, but just because a topic is notable doesn't mean that it benefits Wikipedia's readers to cover the topic in a separate article rather than a section in a different one placing the topic in context (WP:NOPAGE) (t · c) buidhe 05:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about not finding anything newer than 1967 - the article also utilizes sources from the 90's and 2000's. Anyway. Separate article does benefit readers, because an article about the subcamp will cover a broad range of other topics, under-weighting this notable topic. For example, an article about the subcamp will cover the conditions in the male camp, the nature of labor for males (tending to livestock) and the male subcamp's closure in 1945. The female camp section will talk about a period of 1943-1944 and forestry work... Therefore, this page, in my view, is the right editorial choice to describe the massacre, while providing the reader with the right level of context. Galileo01 (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how this article is giving the reader more information than including all the information about the massacre that can be cited to high quality sources (i.e. not those from 1967) in a general article about the sub camp. (t · c) buidhe 01:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)