Talk:The Holocaust in Belgium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Holocaust in Belgium has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star The Holocaust in Belgium is part of the Belgium in World War II series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 1, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
February 25, 2014 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Holocaust in Belgium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 02:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brigade Piron. I have started the review by doing some copy edits; I hope you don't mind. Please double check to ensure that I have not changed the meaning. In this chart are items that need to be resolved for the article to pass GA:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    • Please give a translation of less common foreign terms such as Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW); Dietse Natie; Vlaams Nationaal Verbond; Verdinaso. These only are examples - please check the whole article for this issue. Green tickY Done, except Verdinaso (which is an acronym and I don't think it's important enough to spell it out).
    • What is meant by the term "organizational ghetto"? Green tickY Clarified
    • Please identify Eggert Reeder, Adolf Eichmann, and Heinrich Himmler - we need their military ranks and positions in the Nazi hierarchy.Green tickY I understand this for Himmler, but is Eichmann's rank (vs. his role). I have not linked Reeder, whose rank was honorary. I don't know if you want the rank wikilinked by the way. I'm inclined not to to make it clear what the link is.
    One is in italics and one is not. It should work out fine
    • SiPo (Sicherheitspolizei) needs to be linked and defined. I usually show it this way: Sicherheitspolizei (Security Police; SiPo). The source says SiPo und SD Which means Security Police and Sicherheitsdienst (Intelligence Service)
    • Organisation Todt - a brief description please. (a civil and military engineering group) Green tickY
    • RSHA needs more identification; I usually show it this way: SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Main Office; RSHA) Green tickY
    • In September, armed Devisenschutzkommando (DSK; "Currency protection command") units raided homes as their occupants were preparing to report to the transit camp in order to seize their valuables and personal belongings, and in the same month, Jews with Belgian citizenship were, for the first time, also deported. The sentence is too long and the structure is too convoluted. It also contains two topics. How about "In September, armed Devisenschutzkommando (DSK; "Currency protection command") units raided homes to seize valuables and personal belongings while the occupants were preparing to report to the transit camp. Jews with Belgian citizenship were deported for the first time the same month." Green tickY I tweeked this part some more.
    • "valuable" prisoners: What made a prisoner more valuable? - I have taken this phrase out, as it's not made clear in the source material.
    • von Faulkenhausen - this person is only mentioned once, but is not identified or linked.Green tickY
    • Only 1,207 survived the war. Presumably you mean that 1207 deportees survived the war?Green tickY
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    • The lead is quite good, incorporating material from throughout the article. There's nothing in the lead that is not covered in the body.
    • I have removed many sets of quotation marks, as they are typically used to express doubt, and are therefore inappropriate here.
    • Section headers should not repeat the article title. For example, "Belgian opposition to the Holocaust" becomes "Opposition" or something similar. Three section headers need new titles: The Holocaust in Belgium, Belgian opposition to the Holocaust, Belgian collaboration in the Holocaust.Red XN I've done what you say for Opposition. I think it is necessary to keep "in the Holocaust" for collaboration (specific to the Holocaust v. collaboration with occupiers in genera). The alternative would be to change it to "participation" I guess, but that seems a bit over specific. As for "Holocaust in Belgium" subsection, I'm happy to change it, but what do you suggest as an alternative?
    "The Holocaust"
    • The {{cquote}} template is intended for use only for pull quotes. Quotations of less than forty words should not be offset as a block quote but should be left inline. Please remove all three instances of this template.Green tickY
    • Sections at the bottom of the article: Were the books listed in the "Bibliography" used to prepare the article? If not, please change the section header to read "Further reading". If they were, please change the section header to read "Additional sources". The section labelled "Links" should be "External links". The correct order for sections is: See also, Notes and references, Further reading, External links, so the section currently labelled "Bibliography" will have to be moved.Green tickY
    • {{commonscat}} is an external link and should be in that section, not see-also.Green tickY
    • Links:
      • Belgian army redirects to Belgian Land Component. Would you rather link to Belgian Armed Forces? Green tickY Since there was no real navy or airforce to speak of, that's pretty much it. I've direct linked it.
      • Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Belgium - link on the first occurrence, not the second. Green tickY
      • Many terms are over-linked. For example, Judenrat is linked six times. Please link only on first occurrence, or once in the lead and once in the body. Green tickY I hope - I haven't found the six links, but as far as I can see, it only occurs (linked) twice.
    I was probably wrong. I have double checked the links using Auto Wiki Browser and removed a few more instances of overlinking.
  2. Sourcing:
    A. Provides references, with in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    • Material is sourced to high quality books and online resources.
    B. Contains no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing:
    • Spot checks revealed no copy vio or too-close paraphrasing.
    C. No original research:
    • The unusual feature of the pogrom was that it was not ordered by the Germans, and all acts were perpetrated independently by Flemish collaborators. please provide a source for this sentence, or remove it.Green tickY
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    • File:Binnenplaats kazerne dossin.jpg is almost certainly not the uploader's own work, since the photo was taken in Mechelen transit camp during the war. I think you should remove this image.Green tickY
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    • The other images are fine and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Thank you for developing this important and interesting article. On hold for one week -- Diannaa (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The above items have now been dealt with and the article is being passed to GA status. Congratulations, -- Diannaa (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)