Talk:Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red Cross/GA1

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

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

Initial comments: --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will be reviewing the article. Comments are coming shortly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "...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
 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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: Nice work on the article; thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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: Nice work on the article; thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: