Talk:Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Renata3 (talk · contribs) 01:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, so I will take a crack at this.
 * 1) Refs: can I persuade you to switch from r (which is not intuitive to a reader) to sfn?
 * I use sfn for most articles, but I think that the current style works for this one. Anyway, this is personal preference and not part of the GA criteria.
 * I know it is a personal preference, but the r template produces weird and hard to interpret results when two refs are cited at the same (which happens a few times in this article).
 * 1) Intro: This iconic image... - it is not established yet what "this" is. Needs a better starting sentence. Understand that MOS:BOLDLEAD might prevent using the usual approach of bolding article title.
 * Changed to "An iconic image..." "Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph" is just a name I made up myself, there is no official name and it would not be appropriate to bold it.
 * How about this: "An iconic image of the Holocaust, the photograph of a soldier aiming at a woman with child depicts..." ?
 * 1) Red links: nifty ill available for linking to other language wikis
 * I use interlanguage links all the time (in fact, I've been critized for doing so), but in this case the interlanguage articles doesn't exist for the Deutsche Soldaten Zeitung. The article for Swiat exists in some odd location, but I've added the link. I've removed the third red link, because in Spiegel, the name of the archives is given as "Historicschen Archivs in Warschau". Presumably this means the Institute for National Memory, but I thought that might be overly interpretative to make a link.
 * 1) In 1897, there were 442 Jews living in Ivanhorod - might want to link to Russian Empire Census (ref to census & total population of 3,032 https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%AD%D0%91%D0%95/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD)
 * I tried to cite it, but the wikisource template appears to having trouble with Russian.
 * Why not also add total population? And wlink to the census article?
 * everything but a wlink, I don't think most readers speak Russian. Catrìona (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) In 1942, a mass shooting by Einsatzgruppen south of the town - more details of this shooting available? More precise date? Unit?
 * None of the sources give details. I've looked again, and can't find more information unfortunately. It was either Einsatzgruppe C or Einsatzgruppe D, which were the two Einsatzgruppen that operated in the Ukraine.
 * Pitty, can't find anything either :( Found info on shooting in 1942 in Ivanhorod, but appears to be a different village.
 * 1) The Polish resistance infiltrated the postal office in Warsaw and intercepted some correspondence to be sent to the Polish government-in-exile in London. - this makes it sound that the letter was originally addressed to the gov-in-exile.
 * 2) multilingual publication titled "1939–1945: We have not forgotten" - title should be in italics. Any more detail of what that book was all about? I would assume collection of documents? Who published it? The next bit although he knew that the book was using the photographs for Communist propaganda comes as a surprise out of nowhere. Also need a book ID - since ISBN not yet around, can use oclc
 * Should add in-text that it was a photo album published by Society of Fighters for Freedom and Democracy, and that the photo was on the cover (which, could be uploaded to Commons under the same license)
 * 1) lends ammunition to Holocaust deniers - explain how, I don't see it?
 * He does mention Holocaust deniers earlier in the same paragraph, but it may be overly interpretative to make a link.
 * 1) Another academic noted that it was a faithful copy of an image of 1942 mass shootings held by the Polish National Archives in Warsaw. - this seems misplaced (it looks to be in support of photos authenticity, not in support that it is a fake). Also, needs precision - who? when?
 * Clarified
 * Wouldn't that sentence better belong after Tomaszewski's defense?
 * It appeared to have occurred before the controversy arose. I added additional details.
 * 1) The second image depicted five armed men - available online anywhere? even if using External media. use this template to link to colorised version? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7208550/colourised-photos-holocaust-death-camp-victims/
 * Unfortunately, I was not able to find the image online; nor is it reprinted in Struk's book (if so, I would upload it). I'm not sure what the value of the colorized version is. It's not clear whether the person doing the colorization in this case has the qualifications to accurately recolor historial images, and being printed in a tabloid doesn't increase one's confidence in that regard.
 * Oh, I did not see the "teenage photographer" part, nevermind.
 * 1) The photograph received little attention for the next forty years. - this is an odd sentence. 1965 + 40 = 2005. What happened in 2005?
 * Struk doesn't say what happened to bring the photo back to public attention.
 * I would suggest removing this sentence altogether. The original sentence was actually closer to what the book said that there was nothing special written about the photo (not just allegations of forgery). And the way it is now, it implies that the Dresden incident in the next sentence is somehow related to the "40 years".
 * 1) During an exhibition of the photo in Dresden, an elderly German man burst into tears upon seeing it and said that he recognized himself. - when? it's an odd sentence to leave hanging with no follow up. who is the soldier? what's his story? did anyone believe him? Frisk is using the incident for purely emotional effect.
 * I don't have any more information on this incident. Personally, I would not object to removing this, but at least one commentator on the talk page strongly disagrees.
 * It's from Struk's book. pg 95. She cites the 1965 article in Świat (ref 21, pg 195)
 * She does not draw any connection between the incident and this image. I have the sentence, as it's unclear what Fisk's source is for the connection.
 * 1) The claim that it is inauthentic is not widely accepted. - this seems to be misplaced? I assume this refers to the photo? or to the Dresden incident? also, suggest rewording to remove double negative.
 * 2) Where is the original photo held? I guess there are two - one that was sent to London and one that Tomaszewski kept.
 * Struk says that Tomaszewski kept the original.
 * 1) There is more precise info on the image description page that could be imported here.
 * What exact information are you referring to? Some of the information on that page is not cited to reliable sources.
 * 1) Why is Tadeusz Mazur not mentioned? Several sources that I see mention him as co-owner of the photo, co-author of the photo book, and co-author of the article in Świat.
 * I don't think he is the co-owner of the photograph, which is in Tomaszewski's personal archive. Mazur's involvement seems to be as an editor of the book and co-author of the article in Swiat.
 * 1) Mailed to a German soldier in Warsaw - where does it actually say who the sender/addressee was? Struk does not actually say (or even imply) anything about the sender/addressee. I see bunch of online mentions, but those seem to be generic assumptions.
 * Struk says that Tomaszewski kept the original.
 * 1) There is more precise info on the image description page that could be imported here.
 * What exact information are you referring to? Some of the information on that page is not cited to reliable sources.
 * 1) Why is Tadeusz Mazur not mentioned? Several sources that I see mention him as co-owner of the photo, co-author of the photo book, and co-author of the article in Świat.
 * I don't think he is the co-owner of the photograph, which is in Tomaszewski's personal archive. Mazur's involvement seems to be as an editor of the book and co-author of the article in Swiat.
 * 1) Mailed to a German soldier in Warsaw - where does it actually say who the sender/addressee was? Struk does not actually say (or even imply) anything about the sender/addressee. I see bunch of online mentions, but those seem to be generic assumptions.

Overall, it is a pretty skimpy article relying on 2 sources :-/

Renata (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. I think the article does a reasonable job of covering the main aspects of the topic and sources all details to reliable sources. I agree that it would be great if more sources could be found; do you have any in mind that I overlooked? Catrìona (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck out some resolved items, and added some other comments above. Renata (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I think the issues were addressed. I will make a couple minor adjustments to the article, but I am passing it a GA. Renata (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)