Talk:Nuremberg trials/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• A note that I"m going to be reviewing more in line with FAC for prose, figuring you're taking this to FAC soon. I'll note those things that aren't needed to be fixed for GA, however.
• Lead:
  • "21 of the most important surviving leaders of Nazi Germany in the political, military, and economic spheres, and six German organizations" not required for GA, but if you're heading to FAC, you'll need to have either "21 of the most important surviving leaders of Nazi Germany in the political, military, and economic spheres, and 6 German organizations" or "twenty-one of the most important surviving leaders of Nazi Germany in the political, military, and economic spheres, and six German organizations" since you're comparing things and the MOS says use the same style for the numbers.
    • Done
• Origin:
  • "waged wars of aggression across Europe, invading among others Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Low Countries, France, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the Soviet Union.[2] The war saw immense brutality" ... which is it ... "wars" or "the war"?
    • Reworded
  • "In contrast, the United States suffered very few civilian casualties and many Americans were unaware of the scale of the devastation." ... I'm not sure what this is supposed to tell us about the trial background? To be honest, it kinda feels like "we have an opportunity to bash the US for not being in Europe and them not getting damaged much so let's take a swing at them"
    • Hirsch states this in order to highlight the different situation that the four powers were in, but I guess it's not adding much so I removed it.
  • "considering the failure of war crimes prosecutions after World War I." This is unclear to me. I think you mean something along the lines that the US and UK felt that the WWI war crimes prosecutions backfired badly and so were leery of doing it again after WWII?
    • I have rephrased to hopefully be more clear. There is basically agreement in sources that the WWI-related trials are to be considered a failure, so it is not just a US/UK perception.
  • not required for GA, but I think "similar to the Moscow trials in order to demonstrate" would benefit from a bit more context - maybe "similar to their pre-war Moscow trials in order to demonstrate" ?
    • Done
  • "The Western Allies also considered a trial, but in their vision it would be a fair trial where the defendants were presumed innocent. The British, who could not see a benefit from such a trial, proposed summary execution." If the British couldn't see a benefit to a trial, then it wasn't the "Western Allies" considering a trial, but just the US and France?
    • Clarified
• Legal basis:
  • "the negotiators did not discuss historical narratives" - I have no idea what this means?
    • Removed
  • link for "international law"?
    • Done
  • Was the Nuremberg Charter promulgated at the London Conference? It's implied but not stated explicitly
    • Clarified
  • "there had been no provision for individual criminal responsibility for going to war" in previous internation law? Or in the charter?
    • Clarified
• Judges:
  • I think you need to point out that each of the four allies appointed a prosecutor (or more?) and two judges? It's not made explicit.
    • Done
  • "crimes of the Nazi regime as a aberration of Westernness and sought to correct " ... I'm not sure what "aberration of Westerness" means?
    • Clarified
  • Suggest "At Jackson's recommendation, the United States appointed judges Francis Biddle and John Parker to the US delegation. As the largest team, the US contingent would take on the bulk of the prosecution effort."
    • Since the trial was mainly based on US/common law procedure, the judges didn't participate in the prosecution effort. I think this ordering could be misleading, confusing the prosecutors with the judges.
  • "answer to Andrei Vyshinsky in Moscow via secret channels" who is Vyshinsky?
    • Redid this bit.
  • link for "attorney general of France"?
    • Reworded
  • "he resigned in January 1946 and was replaced" resigned as attorney general or from the IMT?
    • This is now clarified
  • "The French government tried to appoint jurists who were not tainted" Are we meaning just the judges and prosecutors here or all the French appointed to the IMT ... i.e. the staff of the prosecutors/judges?
    • The staff, clarified
• Defendants:
  • "and were therefore ineligible for trial" not required, but suggest "and were therefore available for trial".
    • Done
  • "German military, economy, and politics" politics fits a bit odd there ... perhaps "German military, economy, and political life"?
    • Done
  • "leaving 21 in the dock." seems a bit informal/jargony.
    • Removed
  • Should list all the defendants here, even if just a quick mention.
    • Done
• Course:
  • "while the United States "not seek to convict the whole German people of crime"" I think you're missing a verb before the quote?
    • Fixed
• American prosecution:
  • "The film shocked both the defendants and the judges, who immediately closed the trial." Since there isn't an article for the film, why it was shocking is very unclear to the reader. We should probably give some idea why it was shocking. It's also unclear who made the film - was it a Nazi film or something else?
    • Added information
• British prosecution:
  • "both the British and Americans presented evidence against individual defendants" so we list the individuals the British presented evidence against but not who the Americans did?
    • Removed for now, as I can't find confirmation of the defendants that the Americans tackled.
• Soviet prosecution:
  • "from their interrogations of senior enemy officers and Extraordinary State Commission reports" reads a bit odd - it almost seems like it's saying that the Soviets interogated the reports. Suggest "from the Extraordinary State Commission reports and the Soviet's own interrogations of senior enemy officers"
    • Done
  • "By early 1946, Western prosecutors were uneasy about these charges" ... all of the charges mentioned before (murder of children, attempts to cover up atrocities,[124] systematic plunder of occupied territories, and confiscation or destruction of cultural heritage" and Katyn) or just uneasy about Katyn?
    • Clarified—the latter
  • "The inclusion of Katyn in the charges undermined the credibility of Soviet evidence in general." conflicts with "The Soviet prosecution case was generally well-received and presented compelling evidence about the suffering of the Soviet people and the Soviet contribution to victory."
    • Both of these are from Hirsch and I don't think it's a contradiction. She states:

      For the Western powers, Pokrovsky’s presentation undoubtedly raised even more questions about the general veracity of Soviet evidence. The American and British governments already had information pointing to Soviet responsibility for Katyn. If the Soviets had fabricated evidence and coerced witness testimony in order to implicate the Nazis in this crime, what did this mean for the rest of their case?

      and

      The Soviet presentations, documentary films, and witness testimony had been emotionally wrenching and deeply disturbing. Some American and British observers suspected the Soviet prosecution of exaggeration and in some instances even fabrication—but this did not diminish the power of their case. Taylor later wrote that in spite of some apparent flaws in the Soviet evidence, no one (except for Goering) questioned its overall veracity in painting a picture of Nazism in the occupied East.

• Verdict:
  • "were based on a deadlock between the judges and surprised observers" this reads as if the deadlock was between the judges and observers - suggest "were based on a deadlock between the judges; the decision surprised observers."
    • Done
  • Should give a breakdown of who received what sentence.
    • Done
• Nuremberg Military Tribunals
  • Suggest using the {{main}} template here to the correct article
    • done
• Contemporary reactions:
  • "Almost all prisoners were released by the end of the 1950s." Please give some sort of breakdown of who got released when and where they spent their sentences.
    • Add more info on amnesty.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth Thanks so much for your detailed review! I hope I've addressed your comments adequately. (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

These all look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)