Talk:Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red Cross/GA1

GA Review

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

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

• I will be reviewing the article. Comments are coming shortly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

• • Thanks for the review! I hope I have fixed everything to your satisfaction. buidhe 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Assessment against GA criteria

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)

   Pass/Fail: