Talk:Madagascar Plan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Some spots where the prose could use some clarifying.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * "The proposal called for the handing over of Madagascar, then a French colony, to Germany as part of the French peace treaty." But it never was actually part of the peace treaty (was there even a peace treaty signed between Germany and France in WWII?) so this statement seems a bit misleading - it implies that there was a peace treaty and that this proposal was in the treaty. Can we rephrase?
 * There was an an armistice signed on 21 June (Hitler used the same railway car where the Germans had signed their own instrument of surrender after WWI). The plan was not included in this surrender. I will rephrase.
 * Dislike the parenthesis for (1940) in "The Plan was postponed after the Germans failed to defeat the British in the Battle of Britain (1940) and was permanently shelved in 1942." ... suggest trying "The Plan was postponed after the Germans failed to defeat the British in the Battle of Britain later in 1940 and was permanently shelved in 1942." which has the advantage of making it clear that the Battle of Britain took place later in 1940 and didn't coincide or precede the proposal of the Plan.
 * Origins:
 * Why do we discuss events in 1905 then jump back to 1885? Seems very disjointed to me. Suggest integrating the two paragraphs of this section into one paragraph that is strictly chronological. Also, can we have some sort of introductory sentence such as "In the late 1800s and early 1900s there were a number of resettlement plans for European Jews that were precursors to the Madagascar Plan." or something like that which will help set the stage for the origins information.
 * In Nazi Germany:
 * Any reason we use "regime" rather than "government"? Regime has the connotations of something imposed by force or illegitimate. I rarely see the term "regime" used in referring to the Nazis in power - it's usually government or other such terms that imply that the government was approved of by most Germans.
 * Planning:
 * "The Madagascar Jews, noted Rademacher, could be used as hostages to ensure "future good behaviour of their racial comrades in America"." Can we make it a bit clearer that these Jews aren't Jews already resident in Madagascar, but the proposed resettled Jews?
 * What's the point of saying "On 20 June, Hitler discussed the Madagascar Plan with Grand Admiral Erich Raeder.? Did they discuss what help/aid the Navy would need to provide the Plan? Otherwise, this factoid is just sort of drifting out there... without much clue why it's mentioned. I think it ties in with the idea of transporting the deportees by sea, but it can come out.
 * "While Rademacher's plan called for the appearance to be given to the outside world that the colony was self-governing and had been given autonomy, Eichmann made it plain in his draft that the SS would control and oversee every aspect of life on the island, which they would govern as a police state." Very convoluted sentence - can we simplify or reword? I got lost in the first half somewhere... Try this new wording, which is clearer and closer to what the source says.
 * You've got a link for General Government, but a quickie explanation wouldn't go amiss for most folks who aren't grounded in the history of the time period.
 * Why "calling for the resettlement of a million Jews per year for four years" but "viewed the forced resettlement of 4,000,000 Jews to Madagascar"? Not sure I understand the problem, but I changed the wording anyway. See what you think.
 * Why "recently appointed head of the Judenreferat III der Abteilung Deutschland (Jewish Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs)," but all the rest of the German governmental departments are just given their English equivilent names? And the one later that is given both in German and English is not italicized ("chief of Amt II (Office 2) in the")
 * Plan abandoned:
 * "The United Kingdom strongly resisted during the Battle of Britain, and Germany was unable to achieve a victory. The British fleet would not be at Germany's disposal to be used in evacuations, and planning for the Madagascar proposal stalled." Stilted - can we reword this a bit to make it less choppy?
 * "...for use as slave labour or to be murdered." awkward - perhaps "eitehr for use as slave labour or to be murdered."
 * "The total number of Jews murdered during the resulting Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to six million people." We need a sentence before this making it clear that the Jews weren't actually deported to Siberia, but that the Holocaust took place in Eastern Europe.
 * See also:
 * How were these chosen and what relevance do they have to THIS topic. I can't really see how useful any of them are - are we seriously equated the Jewish settlement in the Japanese Empire as useful to understanding the Madagascar Plan? Also the Haavara Agreement? This stuff was here when I arrived; removing.
 * Sources:
 * What makes the Rosenberg source (on About.com) a reliable source? Is she a subject matter expert? Likewise the two Jewish Virtual Library sources?
 * I checked in the WP:RSN archives, and it looks like the Jewish Virtual Library has been deemed a reliable source. Nevertheless as GAs should demonstrate our higher quality work, alternative sources have been found for these facts. Everything in the Rosenberg article looks okay to me, but I have switched to alternative sources anyway since I am not really sure who she is.
 * Nice little article, just some issues with the sourcing and with some prose spots that could use some clarity.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdgyth. Thanks so much for taking on this review. I think I have addressed all your concerns. Please let me know if there's anything I have missed. -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes look good. Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and for your insightful suggestions. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked in the WP:RSN archives, and it looks like the Jewish Virtual Library has been deemed a reliable source. Nevertheless as GAs should demonstrate our higher quality work, alternative sources have been found for these facts. Everything in the Rosenberg article looks okay to me, but I have switched to alternative sources anyway since I am not really sure who she is.
 * Nice little article, just some issues with the sourcing and with some prose spots that could use some clarity.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdgyth. Thanks so much for taking on this review. I think I have addressed all your concerns. Please let me know if there's anything I have missed. -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes look good. Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and for your insightful suggestions. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)