Nuremberg trials was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The section now ends with: "The defence council included several men who took part in the war crimes during World War II. The men testifying for the defense hoped to receive more lenient sentences, but that did not happen often. In fact, all of the men testifying on behalf of the defence were found guilty on several counts." This requires clarification. Does this mean that the defence counsel called on witnesses who were involved in war crimes? Or that the attorneys themselves were involved in war crimes. If the latter, could we name these guys so as not to cast a spell of suspicion on all of them? I entered the detailed info on the names, but the way this is phrased now is a problem in my view. Why were those testifying for the defence hoping for more lenient sentences? Usually, if you testify for the prosecution they may offer you leniency... Finally, what's this about "all of the men testifying for the defence were found guilty"?? That is obviously untrue, unless it refers only to other defendants. Drow69 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
That in this case "defense counsel" includes the witnesses should definitely be pointed out explicitly. I created the section on the defense lawyers and meant it to focus just on the attorneys and their staff. There is also the question of Nimitz. His written testimony was sought by the defense to show that the Americans also did some of the things that the defendants were accused of. So "All of the men testifying on behalf of the defense were found guilty on several counts" obviously makes no sense if we read it to include Nimitz. Drow69 (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It is to my mind incorrect to narrow the Nuremberg trials article down to being "part of a series on the Holocaust", the Holocaust being only one of the topics dealt with at the Nuremberg trials.
I understand what you're saying, but inclusion in that series doesn't mean that the trials are purely a Holocaust issue - merely that they're germane to it. Barnabypage (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Could it be possible to add a section which provides a historical narrative of the bulleted points and the information summarized in the chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone object to if I proceeded with this idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)