Talk:Theresienstadt concentration camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Propose splitting List of prisoners of Theresienstadt concentration camp[edit]

The best quality concentration camp articles, including Auschwitz concentration camp and Mauthausen concentration camp, have a separate article for list of notable inmates. Catrìona (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Split[edit]

The Small Fortress and the ghetto were geographically separate (a few kms apart), had different inmate populations and functions, and very few prisoners were transferred from one to the other. The only thing they have in common is the name and general location. So I think it would be appropriate to split off the Small Fortress into a separate article. Name suggestions welcome. Catrìona (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The name and logic are faultless, but there's hardly any material here on the Small Fortress, and no citations. If you have suitable materials and sources, then I'd support the split. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 13:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


Opening statement[edit]

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

In reviews I conduct, I may 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, plus Added, Not done, Doing..., or minus 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♠ 13:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Do note that I am not knowledgeable in Wikipedia copyright, so this section is coming from my limited experience with it.

minus Removed The image was created during World War II, so it's not PD-1923 and I can't find unambiguous evidence that it is PD at all, so I just got rid of it. After a web search, I could not find any relevant maps that were obviously PD.
God above, I hate it when that happens. –Vami

Background[edit]

  • Opened on 22 September 1784 Change to "Founded" or "established". "Opening" a town sounds kind of weird when you've first invented it.
 Done

History[edit]

  • Deportees to the camp had to surrender all possessions except for 50 kilograms (110 lb) luggage, 50 kgs of luggage, or only items within 50 kgs?
50 kgs of luggage, clarified
  • used creative methods in order to improve the infrastructure What methods exactly?
Rothkirchen is very vague in this point; she says "Thanks to the ingenious activities of the Work Detail [Aufbaukommando] the dilapidated and neglected compound was transformed..." I think there are more details in Bondy; I'll add them later.
 Done
  • Footnote "b" would be better in the prose, divided from the sentence its attached to with a semicolon, for some extra punch.
Not done Adler's book, although first published in English in 2017, was actually written in 1955. Although very complete in some respects, the figures for returnees are considerably inaccurate (compared to later estimates). Basically, he had access to a reasonable count of people who had registered as returnees in Czechoslovakia, but only educated guesses for the number of survivors from Germany, Austria, etc., which in this case he ignored and only stated the number of known survivors from the Protectorate. His estimate of survivors from the Theresienstadt family camp is a significant underestimate compared with the Terezín Initiative's latest figures. In this particular case, I don't have a newer estimate. Because of these caveats, I think it would be undue weight to include it in the text, and perhaps I should get rid of it entirely.
I agree that it should probably be cut if its not iron-clad. If you keep it, expand it.
minus Removed
  • For the next seven months, Redundant, remove.
minus Removed
  • (German: Zählappel) [...] (German: Verschönerung) Axe.
minus Removed Zählappel. I think it's reasonable to keep Verschönerung, because the majority of English language sources discussing it mention that this is the German word and there seems to be a strong association with Theresienstadt.
  • resulting in about 300 deaths From sickness related to the cold or outright freezing to death?
Rothkirchen says that the 300 deaths occurred on the field while the SS were counting, from "exhaustion and fatigue".
Include in prose? –Vami
 Done
  • and were probably dumped in the nearby Eger River. "Probably" sounds very wobbly. Remove this clause.
All of the post-Adler sources that mention this incident unambiguously state that it occurred. I cited one and removed the word "probably".
Excellent, thank you. –Vami

Jewish self-administration[edit]

  • which heightened the rates of starvation for elderly Jews in particular. Remove "rates of".
 Done
  • Youth Welfare Office I did a Ctrl+F for this and found no description of this organization previously in the text. Could you write about them some more?
I added a little bit of information. However, most of the sources focus on what the Youth Welfare Office did and very little on what it was.

Note on stability[edit]

Please make further major edits not directed by reviewer after the review. The article stops being stable and I have to go back to review the content added. –Vami_IV♠ 14:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Cultural life[edit]

 Done

GA progress[edit]

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



The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.