Talk:Aleksandras Lileikis

Additions

@Renata3: I have removed some additions as they lacked sources:

• In infobox: citizenship of Russian Empire and death in Vilnius, span of crimes 1941–1944—no sources anywhere in the article
• "He signed at least 70 documents that Jews in his control be handed over" That is what sources say, not the change you made to 70 Jews. One of these documents had 52 names on it!
• The OUP book was not written by Gerwarth & Horne; it was edited by them; the relevant chapter was written by Tomas Baleikis.

Please double check any changes you make to avoid adding unsourced information or changing the meaning of existing text without checking sources. Also, please respect existing citation format, and only add information to the infobox if it's already cited in the article and relevant to notability. buidhe 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Will add refs when I get back to computer, but re 70 Jews vs 70 documents. The only place I saw "70" being mentioned is in the Trials website where it is rather vague "cases". Neither MacQueen nor NYT cite any numbers. NYT had no new info, so that's why I removed altogether. But 75 "Jews" are cited in quite a few places. Eg. JTA, Chicago Tribune, etc. So I don't actually see where you got 70 "documents" from. And I did not touch the OUP book other than delete tracing info from Google books url. Renata (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All comments have been addressed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No issues

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Source concerns addressed

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks are clear; AGF on Lithuanian sources

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear; spotchecks are clear

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No issues

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All (minor) concerns addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image licenses check out to the best of my abilities

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All comments addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

Please feel free to revert my copy-editing, especially if I've inadvertantly changed the meaning anywhere.

• "In 1927, he entered the Faculty of Law" to a contemporay reader, this sounds like he became a professor, but unless I'm much mistaken this means he became a student; is it possible to clarify this?
  • Fixed
• "He worked at criminal police" is there a reason this isn't "worked for the criminal police, and do we know when?
  • Fixed. I do not know the dates, another editor added it based on a Lithuanian language source which I do not understand.
• "Polish resistance in Lithuania" is this linkable?
  • Redlinked
• "investigated the death of Russian soldier Butayev" this could use a little more context; I'm a little lost as to what is going on here.
  • Apparently it is discussed at Soviet ultimatum to Lithuania#Initial accusations, which I linked. This was added by another editor and I do not have access to the source to know what more it might say about the incident.
• Not a big deal, but I don't especially like the use of "etc" in an encyclopedia article, especially when I'm not sure what else is being referred to.
  • Removed
• I would specify that the OSI is a unit of the US DOJ, when first mentioned.
  • Added
• "a "gross distortion" according to journalist Eric Lichtblau" this is a little ambiguous at the moment; the distortion could theoretically refer either to the CIA's claim or to the counter.
  • clarify
• "Lithuanian Catholic church" is this linkable?
  • done
• " in a cable from Berlin" "Berlin" in this period could mean many things; do we know who this came from?
  • I think it is being used as metonomy for some part of the West German government but it's not clear in the source.
• A half sentence of explanation for what Section 340(a) did would help a lot.
  • done
• Could you provide a little more explanation for what Yitzhak Arad was doing in the case?
  • Done
• "Lithuania was slow to prosecute Lileikis" this seems like it contradicts the rest of that paragraph; perhaps "Lithuania was initially slow to prosecute Lileikis"?
  • Initially, Lithuania indicated that he would not be prosecuted, then it took them two years to file charges even though US prosecutors had already gathered the evidence. So I think that we can report what the source says about this being "slow."
• Gimžauskas also settled in the US, according to the article; how did he end up back in Lithuania?
  • Explained in article
• There's a few sources I'm a little hesitant about; I don't know that they're unreliable, but I'd like to check with you about them. They are; trialinternational; Delfi; and Dirva.
  • Trial International is an international NGO which advocates the prosecution of those who are guilty of serious international crimes. They are mentioned in news articles and statements with Amnesty International and other similar orgs, so I think they're probably reliable enough. As for the other sources, I am not sure because I did not add them and do not understand Lithuanian. Hopefully Renata3 would be willing to clarify.
    • Delfi is one of the most popular web portals in Lithuania. The stories were authored by Baltic News Service. It's equivalent to CNN publishing an AP story. Dirva is a Lithuanian newspaper published in the United States. None of these sources are used to cite anything controversial -- just adding some undisputed details on his trial and death. P.S. pings don't work if there is no signature with the comment. Renata (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reply; that sounds reasonable; I'll wrap this up shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• The "Collaborator" in the image caption could use a link, I think, because collaborator in this context has a meaning very different from the usual meaning.
  • Done

Thanks for your review, I believe I've addressed everything. buidhe 21:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything looks good, but I'd like to wait on a response about the sources before passing this; some web news portals are fine, others are dreadful, and I know nothing about this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)