Talk:Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 02:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing the article. Disclaimer: I started the page in 2017, but it was really bear-bones: [1], until expanded by the nominator. I don't believe that my prior involvement with the article would preclude a fair review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks to be in great shape. Some comments and suggestions before the formal review:

For historical context, the American historian Joseph Robert White wrote a section that provided an overview of the early camps, while German historian Karin Orth [de] continued the story with the history of the WHVA camps. -- This is a bit awkward; suggest: "For historical context, the American historian Joseph Robert White provided an overview of the early camps, while German historian Karin Orth [de] contributed a section on the history of the WHVA camps." --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...died in a short period of time. -- this is vague -- how short? is it possible to be more specific? If not, it can be omitted, to simply state: "Despite Nazi orders aimed at improving the productivity of concentration camp labor, conditions remained deadly." --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A review by Simone Gigliotti... -- Her name is not blue-linked, so I suggest using "A review by the historian Simone Gigliotti of the University of London..." to indicate that this opinion is authoritative. Also, since she appears to be a notable historian, then red-link the name, since several other names are red-linked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volume II has been compared to... -- compared by whom? Suggest attributing this statement, as it comes across as wp:weasel otherwise. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The para "American historian Waitman Wade Beorn praised ..." contains more quotations than needed, IMO. For example, the sentence ...he wrote that "the entries can be viewed as extensive collections of metadata for discrete geographical locations", providing "a critical foundation" for thinking spatially about the Holocaust. Despite the high price of the encyclopedia, Beorn wrote, it was an essential purchase for "[e]very serious scholar of the Holocaust in the East" as well as academic libraries... can be simplified as follows: ...he wrote that "the entries can be viewed as extensive collections of metadata for discrete geographical locations", providing the basis for thinking spatially about the Holocaust. Despite the high price of the encyclopedia, Beorn wrote, it was an essential purchase for academic libraries and scholars of the Holocaust. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: