Wikipedia:Peer review/Post-World War II Romanian war crime trials/archive1

Post-World War II Romanian war crime trials


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been roughly 2 years since the last time I created an article from ground up, so I fear I might be a bit rusty. Also this is a topic I put a lot of work and research into, so I would like a second opinion.

Thanks, Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tytire
I offer comments as a reader not informed about the topic. I mostly raise presentational issues: It is an interesting article, tiding up and expanding the presentation may make it more informative and effective. Well done.Tytire (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The background section may be made more detailed and comprehensive outlining the historical context; the double emphasis of being a partner and not a vassal may be avoided; the Cassabile armistice may be briefly explained for what implied for Italy's role in the conflict (one sentence); the quotation from Lucaks may be replaced by a more articulate presentation of what happened, rather then presenting an opinion.
 * Holocaust section: the section seems to rush and give emphasis to value judgments before facts; it would rather be beneficial to present facts and their evolution and then, perhaps, sourced judgments by mainstream historians;
 * "Romania ranks first" - was there an official ranking?
 * The trials. It would be useful to contextualise briefly: what happened at the end of the conflict, over and above prosecutions.
 * Can you provide background on the legal framework for the prosecutions in the different stages ? ideally drawing from legal scholarship.
 * The presentation may be tidied up in subsections dealing with the different historical phases, now all is lumped under "People's Tribunal" including the post 1990s' cases; and then again we read of the "subsequent trials". It is a bit confusing.
 * The overturning of the "Journalists' trial" is presented but the post war trial itself is not presented, so the reader is lost.
 * I suggest eliminating adjectives and adverbs which may carry POV ("notorius", "only")
 * stats mostly deal with sentences, are there stats about cases brought to justice?
 * Nominator has not edited since August, so I am closing this PR. A new PR can be opened when the above are addressed or considered. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)