Talk:Velepromet camp

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I'll just do a brief c/ec/e done In the infobox it is described as a concentration camp, a term that carries significant implications. It is also categorized as such. This needs to be supported by a reliable source, otherwise I suggest "detention camp". What is it called by the Hague tribunal? This has been addressed, except for the wording of the categorisation, which is not something the nominee can fix alone
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Søberg is listed as a source, but doesn't appear to be used Ramet isn't in the source list, but is cited
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for seven days for above points to be addressedListing, well done

Thank you for the review.

Re ICTY categorization of Velepromet, it is referenced simply as "Velepromet" or as "Velepromet facility" ([1]) while the International Court of Justice refers to it either as "Velepromet" or "Velepromet prison camp" ([2]). I managed to find correct parameter allowing different designation of the facility and applied it accordingly. Not sure what to do with the category though. There appears to be no particularly correct category in place, so should this one be simply removed? I am aware that this is matter of labels applied (as in cases of "massacres") that does not necessarily have anything to do with number of victims nor it should imply that killing/unlawfully holding captive any number of civilians/pows is tolerable (let alone acceptable) by any stretch of imagination - but I have no clue what to do in terms of categorization here.

• The only thing that should probably be done is renaming the category, not something you can control.

The redundant source is now removed, and the missing one (Ramet) added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Listing, well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Death toll

Croatia's legal team claimed in Croatia v. Serbia that 350 inmates were killed at Velepromet, but the ICJ could not confirm this number (see page 76 of the verdict). This should probably be mentioned in the article, as the death toll currently presented here is the cumulative total of people that went missing in eastern Slavonia and are presumed to have passed through Velepromet at some point, regardless of whether they were actually killed there or not. 23 editor (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)