Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 February 2023 [1].

---

The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

So, I've been working on this article for a while and I think it's more or less ready for FAC. I'd like to thank everyone who helped improve the article at GAN and ACR, and for Gog's excellent copyedit. (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

The grammar for this one looks a bit rough so I'll recuse to review. ;) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• "the German invasion and occupation of the rest of the Czech lands in 1939". It may be worth giving the month, to indicate t a reader whether this pre-dated the outbreak of WWII.
  • Done
• "either before or after the 1948 Communist coup." As written this would seem to cover all eventualities. :)
  • Rephrased
• "In the nineteenth century, the Czech National Revival agitated for autonomy for the Czech-speaking majority in the region." I don't see what this has to do with the title of the article
  • Rewritten
• "Zionism also made inroads among the Jews of Moravia and the Sudetenland." This doesn't make sense without a reasonably detailed study of the link, which is contrary to MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
  • I'm not sure what to do about it because the sources assume the reader knows what Zionism is.

Perhaps something like "Zionism – an ethnic nationalist movement supporting a homeland for the Jewish people centered in Palestine – also made inroads among the Jews of Moravia and the Sudetenland."

OK, I just took it out because I'm not convinced that it's super important.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• thanks for all your comments! (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Optional: I would be inclined to subsume sections 2 and 3 into "Background" as sub-sections.
  • I'm reluctant to do this because of vagueness/disagreement between sources exactly what is background as opposed to part of the article topic (arguably including the anti-Jewish measures introduced in 1938).
• "Czech–Jewish marriages". Should that not be a hyphen rather than an en dash?
  • Rephrased
• "the same definition as the Nuremberg Laws (anyone with three Jewish grandparents was a Jew.)" It seems odd that the previous definition is discussed in the prose, and that this one is relegated to parentheses. Why not 'the same definition as the Nuremberg Laws, that anyone with three Jewish grandparents was a Jew.'?
  • Done
• "the purpose of leveraging the property of Czech Jews". I can't work out what this means. What is "leverage"?
  • Rewrote
• "Fewer Jews were able to escape from the Protectorate". In absolute terms, or as a proportion?
  • In both absolute and relative terms, but the latter is more emphasized in sources.
• "The Nisko deportees were dumped in the local area". The local area of where?
  • Rephrased
• "firsthand accounts of the brutality they had suffered." What brutality would that be? This is its first mention.

You missed this one.

Now removed as I cannot find more specifics on this.

• Could Hermann Göring be properly introduced.
  • Avoided.
• "after the German annexation" → 'after the German annexation of Austria.'
  • Done
• "property confiscation was even extended to businesses owned by Czechs". All' Czech-owned businesses?
  • Only some of them.
• "all Jewish property". Is this "property" in the sense of 'land and buildings', or the broader sense of all physical possessions?
  • I believe the latter. This was actually the same decree as the one that led to the foundation of the Central Office.
• "running businesses in different sectors of the economy". Different from what?
  • wikt:different sense 2: "Various, assorted, diverse." I've changed to "various" for additional clarity.
• "At the time of liberation, 6,875 Theresienstadt prisoners were". Is the date of liberation known?
  • Added

• "The family camp was dissolved in July 1944." "dissolved" seems an odd choice of word. What does it mean?
  • It was ended and most prisoners were killed.

Ok, but earlier you write "the camp was dissolved and the 460 survivors from the Protectorate were allowed to return home" suggesting that here dissolved does not mean "most prisoners were killed".

Added clarification that in this case most were killed.

• "Several Holocaust perpetrators and collaborators were tried before People's Courts". Is this still in the 1990s? If so, what happened to them 1945-1990?
  • These courts only ran for a few years after the war, added clarification.
• "and led to similar politicization as had already occurred in Poland and Hungary." This rather ducks the issue. What was the politicization?
  • Regrettably the source does not permit much clarification without going into original research. I've taken out the sentence.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking good. A couple of minor come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

• The "Background" section suggests that only Jews from the countryside moved to Prague and other towns in the 19th century. As far as I know the Jewish migration from Galitsia to other territories within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was quite typical in this period.
  • Contrary to this assumption, according to the cited sources the only major migration of Galician Jews to Bohemia and Moravia occurred during World War I and most left afterwards.
• Did the Jews speak German or Jiddish?
  • As the article and cited sources state, they spoke German.
• Can we describe the three cities listed in the second paragraph of the "Background" section as large? (Ostrava had less than 120 thousands inhabitants.)
  • I use reliable sources and not the opinions of Wikipedia editors as to what's "large".
• Do we have data about Reformist and Orthodox Jews, and the conversion of Jews to Christianity?
  • I did not find exact figures on this in the sources consulted.
• Could the title of the second section be changed? I think the term "Second Czechoslovak Republic" is not widely known, and "Czecho-Slovak Republic" was the state's official name.
  • I don't think that this name distinguishes it sufficiently from other instances of the Czechoslovak state. If the section heading should be changed, it would be to something like "Munich Agreement"
    • I think it would be a better solution. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Done (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• ...right-wing politics eventually led to ... an end to racial persecution as an accepted reason for seeking asylum... Could the second part be rephrased? Whenever I read it I am surprised how right-wing politics could lead to an end to racial persecution.
  • Unfortunately, I cannot think of a rephrase that would be an improvement to the current text.
    • Perhaps? "Czechoslovakia accepted thousands of German Jews fleeing Nazism, although right-wing politics eventually led to immigration restrictions, and racial persecution was no more regarded as a reason for granting asylum in the mid-1930s."
      • Done (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• While ethnically Czech refugees were welcomed and integrated, Jews and antifascist Germans were pressured to immediately leave. Are we sure that all Germans coming were antifascist? Do we know where the Jews and Germans left for?
  • Source only mentions antifascist Germans leaving. The Germans who were not antifascist presumably didn't flee as refugees.
• Was the Czecho-Slovak Republic a rump state? Could we describe Germany/Turkey/Hungary as rump states just because they lost significant parts of their territory around 1919?
  • The cited sources describe the second republic as a rump state.
    • In this case, rump state could be linked here.
      • Done (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Were the discriminatory laws introduced by the Beran government based on religion or "race"?
  • Ethnicity, according to the cited source.
    • Could it be mentioned in the article?
• German professional and educational institutions dismissed Jewish teachers and lecturers, while German newspapers laid off their Jewish reporters. Some background? Who were these Germans?
  • Revised
• Who were regarded as Jews in the Protectorate? Did the Protectorate adopt Nazi legislation?
  • On 25 February the Transport Ministry declared that a Jew was "anyone whose parents had both practised the Jewish religion at any point in time". It is not clear what definition of Jewishness was adopted with regard to other anti-Jewish measures at the time and earlier.
    • Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article.
• ...its justice minister... Was he the justice minister of the Protectorate's government or the government-in-exile?
  • the former
• The German administration was controlled by Reich Protector Konstantin von Neurath, former foreign minister of Germany, and Karl Hermann Frank, formerly the deputy chairman of the Sudeten German Party. I assume that the administration of the Protectorate was controlled by high-ranking German officials. Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I'm not sure what change is being requested here. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Was there a separate German and non-German administration? I guess the Reich Protector controlled the administration of the whole Protectorate.
      • Yes there was a separate Czech and German administration, I've made this clearer. (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Link Jihlava.
  • Done
• Prague Jewish organizations were ... taken over by the Gestapo. What does it mean?
  • Unfortunately, all Gruner says is "Jewish institutions were closed or placed under the control of the Gestapo"
• ...their emigration, which was banned by the Security Service (SD) in May 1939 ... Proportionately fewer Jews were able to escape from the Protectorate than from prewar Germany or Austria, due to the narrower window for legal emigration (July 1939 to September 1941) I do not clearly understand what was banned or legalised and when.
  • Rewrote
• The Prague office was set up on 15 July for the purpose of using the property of Czech Jews to enable the emigration of German Jews. Could you explain it?
  • Rewrote
• Why is the German name of only some towns are mentioned (Pilgram, Humpoletz)? Do we need to mention them?
  • I should have removed all of these.
• Due to increasing poverty, by 1940 Czech Jews were suffering from tuberculosis at ten times the average rate for Central Europe. Perhaps the sentence could better serve as the last sentence of section "Employment and forced labor". Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't say so explicitly, but it's more likely that tuberculosis was related to poor housing conditions and overcrowding than forced labor. (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Perhaps overcrowding could be mentioned as the main reason. Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
      • None of the sources allow us to say the exact cause of these high tuberculosis rates among Czech Jews without original research but housing conditions / overcrowding is recognized as a major contributing factor in tuberculosis epidemiology research. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• It is very personal, but I hate the expression "Final Solution" because it suggests that there was a problem to be solved. Do we need to accept Nazi terminology?
  • Reworded
• Perhaps it should be mentioned that Heindrich was assassinated by members of the Czechoslovak resistance movement to provide a context for the martial laws.
  • Done
• As far as I remember the Council of Elders is first mentioned in section "Direct transports". If this is the case, could its functions be explained in a previous section?
  • Reworded
• While is the capital letter for community in the expression "Prague Jewish Community"? In the previous chapters, it is not used.
  • I capitalize Jewish Community where it refers to a specific organization (Gruner capitalizes even more than I do).
• Anti-Jewish rioting was reported in 31 locations. Timeframe? Is it for sure, that all these riots were against Jews? In Hungary, riots against Communist agents were sometimes described as Anti-Semitic actions by the Communist authorities.
  • I am unable to find more information in the cited source and the footnote seems erroneous since it does not mention anti-Jewish rioting. Therefore, removed.
• A short explanation for People's Court?
  • Rewrote

Thank you for this comprehensive, exceptionally well written and interesting article. I hope in time you will be interested in the Hungarian sister article as well. Borsoka (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your detailed review! (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• I still think that the capitalisation of the term "Community" is unneccesary because it does not refer to an organization but to the Jewish population, but I am sure there are other editors who understand this issue better than me. So I support the promotion of this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 15:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• German occupation of the Sudetenland 'German annexation of the Sudetenland'?
• the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was established. this leaves the status of the Protectorate somewhat unclear. Perhaps add '...as a semi-autonomous part of Nazi Germany.' or similar? The fact that the Protectorate was effectively integrated into the Reich and not a third country is important.
  • Rephrased as partial annexation
• because of economic rivalries link to economic antisemitism
  • I'm reluctant to do that because the cited source does not mention "antisemitism" in the paragraph where this is discussed.
• The law was repealed in 1848 I guess as part of the Jewish emancipation in the 1848 revolutions? Can we link this somewhere?
  • Rephrased and mentioned granting of legal equality
• ...had an ethnic-German majority link Sudeten Germans.
  • Done
• Czechoslovakia accepted thousands of German Jews fleeing Nazism suggest precede with 'After the Nazi takeover of Germany in 1933, Czechoslovakia accepted thousands of German Jews fleeing Nazi persecution...' and link to Anti-Jewish legislation in pre-war Nazi Germany
  • Done
• in the mid-1930s is a bit vague, especially given the narrow timeframe (1933-1938), can we have a precise year?
  • Specified as much as the source allows
• antisemitism was on the rise in Czechoslovakia do we know what factors led this? A spillover effect from Germany? The subsequent examples seem to affect specifically Jews from Poland, and given the tensions with Poland over Cieszyn this may have been a factor. Or is it more tied to the general hardening of the Czech stance towards minorities due to the 'betrayal' of the Sudeten Germans? Put another way, how did the relatively inclusive Czechoslovak state of the interwar period turn to antisemitism, and which Jewish groups were affected at this time?
  • Gruner, Frommer, and Frankl suggest anti-German sentiments and the arrival of German Jewish refugees as a reason as stated in the next paragraph.
• ...that the participation of Czech local authorities in anti-Jewish measures far exceeded passive compliance with orders from above. He also found that local authorities were obliged to respond to demands to persecute Jews and often did so reluctantly. does the second sentence not contradict the implications of the first? If compliance was reluctant, how did their participation 'far exceed passive compliance'?
  • Rephrased. This is only briefly covered in the cited source; I believe we'll find out more of Frommer's argument when he gets around to publishing the book he is working on.
• likely motives for Czech bureaucrats to implement anti-Jewish regulations at the individual level this is certainly true. But what was the view and motivation of the Czech administration? Correct me if I am wrong, I always had the impression that the various collaborationist regimes were willing to 'sacrifice' the Jews in their power to gain favour with Hitler, and thus 'spare' their 'own' population, avoid ceding territory to neighbours, etc. In other words, the Germans' hegemony and ability to impose arbitrary measures created a sort of competitive antisemitism, where the subject regimes competed with one another to get into the good graces of the new hegemon; to different degrees, depending on their dependence on the Germans, of course.
  • I don't have reliable sources that give this analysis. Furthermore, according to Gruner many anti-Jewish policies prior to 1942 were developed at the local level so strategic considerations may not have been as relevant.
• most of these were Jews can we be more precise? over half? over two thirds?
  • Added numbers
• their emigration, which was banned by the Security Service (SD) in May 1939.... The Prague office was set up on 15 July ....narrower window for legal emigration (July 1939 to September 1941). Does tis mean that the Germans banned emigration in May 1939, reallowed it under their auspices in July 1939, and finally ended it in September 1941? Does this mean that there was a window for emigration in March-May 1939?
  • Reworded
• Axis-aligned Slovakia and Hungary better 'German-aligned Slovakia and Hungary', as they were German clients and members of the Axis themselves
  • Done
• protests by Czechs. Who were these? Ordinary citizens or the Czech authorities?
  • A physical demonstration by Czech civilians, clarified
• To avoid chaotic property transfers add '(known as 'Aryanization')'?
  • Done
• or $7 billion and $1 billion today replace 'today' with 'in 2022'
  • The inflation template if working correctly will continue to update so 2022 will become out of date.
• Reinhard Heydrich was appointed Reich Protector perhaps add that he was the chief of the SD, or that he combined that post with his continuing role as head of the German security services?

Will continue with the sections from 'Final Solution' on later. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Done
• ... in the Warthegau and West Prussia optional, add that these were in occupied Poland to make clear why Germans were being resettled there?
• Why is Nazi ghettos not linked earlier, e.g. in the 'Ghettoization' section ?
  • According to conventional historiography, the only Nazi ghetto in Bohemia and Moravia was Theresienstadt. "Ghettoization" also refers to a process of concentrating Jews that did not end in a formal ghetto.
• There is a mixture of German and native/current location names (e.g. Łódź vs Kulmhof, and I notice that Chełmno is also used in the article). While the average reader probably won't notice, is there a reason for this? If not, I suggest using the modern/current names, with the WW2-era German name in parentheses.
  • My intention was to use German for places directly annexed into Nazi Germany for historical accuracy. Now fixed Kulmhof/Chełmno. But Łódź Ghetto is almost always called that in English language sources.
• While in Prague the deportation of the city's 46,801 Jews stretched over more than two years can you add a brief summary why?
  • Frommer does not say, but presumably it is because of the much larger number of Jews in Prague compared to elsewhere.
• complete evacuation of the Jews from the Old Reich, the Ostmark, and the Protectorate the quote introduced two new terms that are not otherwise used in the article and need explaining (Old Reich and Ostmark). Perhaps simply paraphraze it to something like 'complete evacuation of the Jews from Germany's 1939 borders'?
  • Done
• After the Lidice massacre... add date for context?
  • Done
• 700 left the camp in early May to where and why? Also to Switzerland?
  • Removed as I added a different sentence about the number of Czech Jews surviving in Theresienstadt
• ...rather than Czech collaboration} I assume '...collaboration with the Germans' is meant? Better make it explicit.
  • Done

That's it for a first pass. A very thorough, well-written and interesting article. Constantine ✍ 18:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. I have been busy lately but I will get to everything tonight or on my day off tomorrow. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: no worries. Have crossed out the resolved ones in the meantime. Constantine ✍ 13:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Constantine, did you want to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Ian Rose: my comments have been addressed. I did another read-through, and could not find anything else. Moving to support. Constantine ✍ 11:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "a portion of the Czech lands annexed into Germany". For clarity, I suggest "a portion of the Czech lands annexed by Germany between 1939 and 1945".
  • Done
• "Some 30,000 Jews, from the pre-invasion population of 118,310, managed to emigrate. The first deportation of Jews took place in October 1939 as part of the Nisko Plan." If I understand correctly, the first sentence is about Jews who managed to escape Nazi territory, the second about Jews internally deported and mainly later murdered. This should be clarified.
  • Your interpretation is correct; however, I am not sure how to rephrase to make it more clear.

• How about "Many (or some) of the remaining Jews were deported to other Nazi-controlled territories, starting in October 1939 as part of the Nisko plan." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Done (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• "many Jews in Bohemia switched to Czech, which was the majority by the 1910 census, but German remained preferred in Moravia and Czech Silesia." Most Jews or most of the total population in the three areas?
  • The former, clarified
• "Hácha formed the National Partnership, a political organization to all adult male Czech Protectorate subjects were required to belong". This is ungrammatical.
  • Fixed
• "The historian Benjamin Frommer contends that the archival record shows that the participation of Czech local authorities in anti-Jewish measures far exceeded passive compliance with orders from above. He also found that local authorities were obliged to respond to demands to persecute Jews and often did so reluctantly." I take this to mean that some local authorities went beyond Nazi orders, whereas others were reluctant, but this shoul be made clear.
  • Done
• "professional associations of merchants, lawyers and physicians took advantage of the antisemitic mood to expel their Jewish members". Why "took advantage"? Maybe "influenced by"?
  • done
• "Although irregular anti-Jewish violence was quiet for much of 1939". "violence was quiet" sounds odd.
  • Reworded
• You mention emigration to the USA in the aftermath section but not in the emigration one.
  • Gruner and some other sources discuss emigration considerably but without saying much about the destination. There is a PhD thesis specifically about emigration (which I did not cite, in part because I know some editors have qualms about the quality of PhD theses as RS), which mentions the US along with many other destinations. It doesn't seem based on the sources I can find that the US made up an especially large percentage of Czech Jewish emigrees between 1938 and 1941—perhaps because of how the US immigration quota worked.

• Some editors argue that books are less reliable because they are not peer-reviewed. I have used a PhD thesis for statements which are clearly true and not stated in other sources, but it is obviously better to leave it out if you are in doubt. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• "It was turned around in Sosnowiec when the Nisko Plan was cancelled by SS chief Heinrich Himmler," What was turned around? If you mean that deportations were halted it would be better to say so.
  • The train that the Jews were on was literally turned around and they were sent home. Tried to clarify.
• I would delete the {{clear}}s. There is no advantage in the extra space.
  • This is to avoid image sandwiching which is a problem depending on display.
• "attempted to mitigate persecution by offsetting different agencies against each other." "offsetting" does not make sense here. Maybe "setting".
  • Done
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Dudley? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• I normally wait for comments to be dealt with before doing the next batch so none get lost. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Fair enough but no need to tell me to get lost... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry if it sounded that way. I just meant it as explaining my apparent negligence. I do not want my comments to get lost, not you. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Joke, sorry -- my Australian sense of humour might be too dry (or just weird) sometimes...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• "After the war 10,818 Czech Jews returned from deportation to Theresienstadt, of whom 3,371 were deported outside the Protectorate." Deported by who?
  • I realize the verb tense is confusing, so changed to "had been deported". This refers to deportations by Nazi authorities during the war as discussed earlier in the paragraph.
• "all able-bodied Jews from outside the capital were drafted into mica splitting at a camp in Hagibor" This is in mid-1944, so do you mean that they were transferred from other camps? Presumably there were no known Jews still free then. Also, the wording is a bit obscure. Maybe "were sent to a labour camp in Hagibor where they were employed splitting mica".
  • Actually this assumption is not correct. The Nazis did not arrest every single Jew that they could find. For example, the Berlin Jewish Hospital was famously in continuous operation throughout the Nazi dictatorship.

• How about briefly covering Jews who were not arrested? Also, see my second comment about obscure wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The section "Remaining Jews" is about those who weren't deported by mid-1943. Many of them were engaged in forced labor of one kind or another, but that didn't necessarily require being "arrested" or "deported". I have taken another look at the sources and tried to clarify. It seems that many of the Jews sent to Hagibor were earlier being employed at forced labor closer to their original place of residence, but the sources don't say so explicitly. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Czech historians have struggled to integrate the Holocaust into Czech history". "In contrast, the Holocaust has often been perceived as noncontroversial in the Czech Republic." These comments seem contradictory.
  • I don't think they are, but I removed the first sentence as unnecessary.
• A very good article on a distressing subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi Dudley, can I just confirm you're happy with the outcome of your review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have twice queried "obscure wording" and got no reply, but it is not a deal-breaker. Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

SC

Will do. SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done to the start of Persecution of Jews. Nothing leaps out at me so far - this is nicely written. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Initial measures

• "the exception of the burning of a second wave of synagogues in May and June": it was (I presume) a second wave of burning, not a second wave of synagogues? "the exception of a second wave of arson attacks against synagogues in May and June" would suit – or something similar
  • Done

Emigration

• "26,111 emigrated.[63] almost half": is that supposed to be a full stop?
  • Fixed

Done to the start of Systematic deportation. More to follow later. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That's all from me. Very nicely written, if a somewhat depressing read. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Src Rev

• The references and citations are perfectly formatted.
• The sources used are of the highest academic quality.
• A thorough search of the databases uncovers no material that one would otherwise expect to find used in the article.
  The source review is thereby passed. SN54129 18:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Last_train_out_of_Prag_on_German_invasion.jpg: I'm not sure this fits the definition given of an official work, seeing as it would not have been public
  • Removed
• File:Furniture_confiscated_from_deported_Jews_in_a_synagogue.png: in what country was this first published?
  • It would have been published in Bohemia in 1944. I believe it's reasonable to count it as Czechoslovakia given that the Czechoslovak state claimed legal continuity over all of its prewar territory and did not recognize the Munich agreement or the German occupation. (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• File:Central_European_Jews_rounded_up_for_deportation_from_the_Łódź_Ghetto.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • I don't know. I'm relying on the source which says it's public domain. (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but there's always the question of public domain where and why, and the current tag does ask that this info be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

      Removed (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• File:Theresienstadt_Ghetto_population_by_country_of_origin.png: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I did not make this image and it would not be easy for me to recreate it with different colors. I cannot even decipher what is wrong with the current color scheme.
  • @Nikkimaria: Would I be right in thinking this was a matter of MOS:CONTRAST, specifically, whereby the colors should be AAA compliant with each other as well as the white background? I've gone by Commons:Creating accessible illustrations and adjusted the hues, which hopefully resolves the problem? (Buidhe, this meant overwriting your earlier upload, but if I'm wrong it's easy enough to revert back to it.) Btw, the page will need its cache cleared before it shows up, annoyingly. SN54129 14:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

    Thx, I think the new colors are an improvement! (t · c) buidhe 18:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

    Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

References

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.