This review is transcluded from Talk:Theresienstadt (1944 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 23:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article as the WikiProject Germany Coordinator, and am on good terms with the article nominator, Catrìona.

In every review I conduct, I make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —Vami♜_IV♠ 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to mention, this review was posted to WikiProject Germany's Assessment Requests, and didn't think to check how recently the article was nominated for GA. —Vami, 11:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The section "References" is laid out beautifully, and the article uses credible, secondary sources. An issue I have, however, is that the United States Holocaust Museum is credited as "Thereisenstadt 2018," as though the camp itself is the source of this information in the year of our Lord, 2018. —Vami♜_IV♠ 11:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 2018". Unfortunately, the museum does not state when the content was created/updated, so I've just gone with the access date. Catrìona (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's occurred to me that none of the sections under "References" have headings. Give "Notes" and "Citations" a heading. —Vami♜_IV♠, 02:10 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I would delete Note A, since including it in the prose would just make the sentence it's in really long.

• About 33,000 died at Theresienstadt, and Delete the comma here.
•  Removed
• 90,000 were deported to Nazi ghettos, Delete "Nazi". The rest of paragraph already implies that the perpetrators were the Nazis, and the ghettos were inhabited by Jews, not Nazis.
•  Removed
• In his report, Rossel claimed erroneously that Jews were not deported from Theresienstadt; nor were they mistreated. The word "erroneously" here is redundant. The semi-colon could also be replaced with a comma and clause like ", nor that they were mistreated."
•  Removed
• German Foreign Ministry Is there an article that could be linked here? The obvious choice seems to be the Federal Foreign Office.
•  Done

This section abuses the semicolon where it would be better to split a sentence or move the semicolon'd prose elsewhere. Note that semicolons are used for a clause that would be a sentence, but aren't because it says essentially the same thing as the sentence the clause is attached to. —Vami♜_IV♠, 04:23 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Margry notes that the Central Office was funded by stolen Jewish property. This is prime material for a footnote. You could also try to reduce this to a clause in the previous sentence, which would require some simplification.

Rewrote this. The source does emphasize this fact, but if you think it's undue weight I can put it in a footnote.

I think just mentioning that the Central Office was funded with pilfered goods is already heavy emphasis and extremely important. –Vami

• a script; by March he had produced a synopsis and two drafts Split sentence.

 Done

• guests;[11] Margry argues Split this sentence and give Margry a greater introduction. Who is this person, and why are they credible enough to be named in the prose?

 Done

• Although eyewitnesses report Gerron's presence on set, constantly urging Jews to behave as mirthfully as the Germans wished and organizing mass scenes, SS men were also always present. Simplify.

 Fixed

• Rosenwein; sound Split sentence.

 Done

• On 28 October, Gerron was deported to Auschwitz, where he was murdered; he never saw even a preliminary version of the film. Split sentence.

 Done

• experience of soundtracks Experience with soundtracks?

 Fixed

• Delete Note D; its Spanish-language text adds nothing to the prose.

Keeping the foreign language original for user translated quotations is recommended per MOS:QUOTE

• He kept them in a private archive; in 1964, it was deposited in the Czech national archives. Another incorrect use of a semicolon here. Who exactly deposited the film? Přemysl Schönbach?

Source uses passive voice and doesn't make it clear who did it Catrìona (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Aaaaaaah! Unhide the details in Note E! –Vami

Restored, but are you sure that all of this is helpful and relevant to readers? It seems like too much detail to me. Catrìona (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If this is the main footage historians have used for their work on the film, leave it in the prose. If not, return to footnote. –Vami

• ("The Jewish Self-Government in Theresienstadt") Delete the quotation marks and replace with italics, apply to all translated titles of this movie.
• Many scholars have claimed that the film was ordered between the Red Cross visit, but that is not the case, Starts with a weasel word and feels hollow; repeats "not the case" from last sentence. The clause "between the Red Cross visit" is erroneous, as there appears to have been a single ICRC visit. –Vami

The problem is that Margry states that "Most scholars have assumed that the decision to make the film was made sometime after the Red Cross inspection visit of June 16" and before the start of filming in August, but does not cite any sources directly for this statement. He then goes on to say that the earlier origin of the film "undermines all the ingenious theories offered to explain the making of the film" and then gives the five examples listed in the article, each cited to a different source. I can't access the sources, and I think it would be OR to claim that all these authors specifically stated that the film was not in development until June 23. I've tweaked the sentence, but my hands are tied otherwise.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed