Jump to content

Talk:Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red Cross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red Cross/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments:

  • "...Nazi invitations to visit concentration camps" -- perhaps better as "German invitations".
    • Done
  • "The prewar Geneva Conventions did not protect civilians, limiting the ICRC's leverage against the German government.[4] However, the ICRC was not limited by the Geneva Conventions..." -- this is a bit confusing since it says that ICRC was both limited and not limited by the convention.
    • Clarified this.
  • "...was considered one of the only remaining..." - considered by whom?
    • It's not clear. Steinacher states that he "was often praised" as such, but he doesn't seem to fully endorse that viewpoint. I added a quote from Favez in a note.
  • "[ICRC]...discovered that it was possible to send medicines..." and then: "In March 1943, in response to an ICRC inquiry, the DRK stated that it was impossible to send food and medical aid to Theresienstadt", which seems a bit contradictory.
    • Fixed
  • "by the Jewish elder" -- does this mean a member of Judenrat?
    • Yes, added clarification
  • "secured permission" -- from whom?
    • Added "from the SS"
  • "causing an unduly positive impression of Theresienstadt to develop..." -- who developed this impression? the public, Jewish organisations, politicians, etc?
    • Removed. It's not really clear what Rothkirchen means.
  • "Rossel claimed" -- perhaps Better "Rossel's report stated..." as "claimed" creates the impression that he was willingly fabricating.
    • Done

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall: Nice work on the article; thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail: