Talk:Osthofen concentration camp/GA1

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 16:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I will be taking a look at this! —  Ghost River  16:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

 * "which features a "Westhofen concentration camp", describes the political prosecution in the area and has been called a memorial to Osthofen inmates." "describes the conditions at a fictional "Westhofen" concentration camp, inspired by Osthofen."
 * Done.
 * "registered as a protected monument in 1989"
 * Added.

History

 * "The Osthofen concentration camp's official history begins" "The official history of the Osthofen concentration camp begins"
 * Yes, done.
 * "However, the camp had already been in operation for longer." "By this time, however, the camp had already been in operation for months."
 * Done (a variation of this, with an "unofficially" for clarity).
 * Comma after "moved to other camps and prisons"
 * Done.

Administration and guards

 * "The camp was under the direction" "Osthofen was under the direction"
 * Done, hope this won't be confused with Osthofen the village.

Conditions in the camp

 * "Osthofen usually held around 200 prisoners at a time, and approximately 3,000 people were imprisoned there over the existence of the camp, usually for two to six weeks, but ranging from one week to one year." "Over the course of its existence, Osthofen held approximately 3,000 people. At one time, it held around 200 prisoners, usually for two to six weeks each, but with sentences ranging from one week to one year."
 * Checked my source and it says "on average 200" so I changed to that. "Sentences" sounds like there were judges involved, which wasn't the case here (the Nazis pretended it was protective custody, see Nazi_concentration_camps).
 * "Although living conditions and hygiene were extremely primitive (at first, prisoners had to sleep on the concrete floor), none of the inmates died in the camp, but many became sick and contracted chronic urinary tract diseases." "Despite the poor living conditions and hygiene in the camp, with prisoners originally sleeping on the concrete floor, there are no recorded inmate deaths at Osthofen. Many became sick, however, and contracted chronic urinary tract diseases."
 * Yes, that's better.
 * WL Yom Kippur
 * Done.

Site history and legacy

 * "In 1908, it was extended with another factory hall, under the ownership of Joseph Kahn." "Under the ownership of Joseph Kahn, another factory hall was added in 1908."
 * "After the use as a concentration camp, it became" "After its use as a concentration camp, the building became"

Mostly small things for a fairly short article. Putting on hold for now, and feel free to ping me with questions. —  Ghost River  17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Literary adaptation

 * "in a clear reference to" "inspired by"
 * Not quite. My source says Der Name verweist eindeutig auf das KZ Osthofen bei Worms, "The name clearly refers to the Osthofen concentration camp near Worms". Inspiration also came from stories about Sachsenhausen (and possibly Oranienburg) camps. I've made some changes, but not quite yours.

Notable prisoners

 * The two members here where periods end their entries should have those periods removed, as the list is still a fragment
 * Done.

General comments

 * All three images are relevant and properly licensed
 * No stability concerns in the revision history
 * Copyvio score looks great at 8.3%
 * Thank you for the review and the prose improvements, User:GhostRiver! I have implemented or responded to most of your suggestions. You did leave a question mark at "broadness"; do you think any important topic is missing or would you prefer some more details somewhere? I know I'm often a bit terse, so please do ask for more. —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that was because of how short the "history" section was, which, after seeing that the camp was only open for about a year, I recanted my opinion that the historical section could be expanded more, but forgot to change accordingly. In any case, I think this is a pass! —  Ghost River  16:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @GhostRiver, I guess everything could be expanded a bit, but I am happy that you agree it is enough for GA. Thanks again, —Kusma (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)