# Talk:Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red Cross

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red Cross/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article. Comments are coming shortly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Initial comments: 

"...Nazi invitations to visit concentration camps" -- perhaps better as "German invitations".
Done
"The prewar Geneva Conventions did not protect civilians, limiting the ICRC's leverage against the German government.[4] However, the ICRC was not limited by the Geneva Conventions..." -- this is a bit confusing since it says that ICRC was both limited and not limited by the convention.
Clarified this.
"...was considered one of the only remaining..." - considered by whom?
It's not clear. Steinacher states that he "was often praised" as such, but he doesn't seem to fully endorse that viewpoint. I added a quote from Favez in a note.
"[ICRC]...discovered that it was possible to send medicines..." and then: "In March 1943, in response to an ICRC inquiry, the DRK stated that it was impossible to send food and medical aid to Theresienstadt", which seems a bit contradictory.
Fixed
"by the Jewish elder" -- does this mean a member of Judenrat?
Yes, added clarification
"secured permission" -- from whom?
Added "from the SS"
"causing an unduly positive impression of Theresienstadt to develop..." -- who developed this impression? the public, Jewish organisations, politicians, etc?
Removed. It's not really clear what Rothkirchen means.
"Rossel claimed" -- perhaps Better "Rossel's report stated..." as "claimed" creates the impression that he was willingly fabricating.
Done
--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I hope I have fixed everything to your satisfaction. buidhe 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


### Assessment against GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall: Nice work on the article; thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: