Wikipedia:Peer review/Post-World War II Romanian war crime trials/archive1

Post-World War II Romanian war crime trials

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been roughly 2 years since the last time I created an article from ground up, so I fear I might be a bit rusty. Also this is a topic I put a lot of work and research into, so I would like a second opinion.

Thanks, Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tytire

I offer comments as a reader not informed about the topic. I mostly raise presentational issues:

The background section may be made more detailed and comprehensive outlining the historical context; the double emphasis of being a partner and not a vassal may be avoided; the Cassabile armistice may be briefly explained for what implied for Italy's role in the conflict (one sentence); the quotation from Lucaks may be replaced by a more articulate presentation of what happened, rather then presenting an opinion.
Holocaust section: the section seems to rush and give emphasis to value judgments before facts; it would rather be beneficial to present facts and their evolution and then, perhaps, sourced judgments by mainstream historians;
"Romania ranks first" - was there an official ranking?
The trials. It would be useful to contextualise briefly: what happened at the end of the conflict, over and above prosecutions.
Can you provide background on the legal framework for the prosecutions in the different stages ? ideally drawing from legal scholarship.
The presentation may be tidied up in subsections dealing with the different historical phases, now all is lumped under "People's Tribunal" including the post 1990s' cases; and then again we read of the "subsequent trials". It is a bit confusing.
The overturning of the "Journalists' trial" is presented but the post war trial itself is not presented, so the reader is lost.
I suggest eliminating adjectives and adverbs which may carry POV ("notorius", "only")
stats mostly deal with sentences, are there stats about cases brought to justice?

It is an interesting article, tiding up and expanding the presentation may make it more informative and effective. Well done.Tytire (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has not edited since August, so I am closing this PR. A new PR can be opened when the above are addressed or considered. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]