Talk:Maria Mandl/GA1

GA review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Angelita dela Rosa (talk · contribs) 21:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grumpylawnchair (talk · contribs) 02:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'll start this review in the next few days. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you so much for your time. No rush!

I do want to note that I am "Angelita dela Rosa", I had just changed my username to "Staniulis". — Staniulis^TALK 12:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Concerns:

Hi! I'm sorry for taking this long. Some personal issues came up and I didn't have much time for Wikipedia these last few days.

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.	See below Fixed.
	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, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.	All tagged with appropriate public domain tags
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead:

• Wikilink "Holocaust"
• Lead strikes me as a bit too short, maybe add something about her cruelty towards the inmates? And some stuff from the "Employment in concentration camps" could probably be used in the lede too.

Early life:

• Maria would later recall, Probably should be a colon there instead of the comma
• I see that all the info in this section are based off one book, which is not ideal. Is there any way you could add another source? It's not a criteria for failure if you can't.
• put down the money could probably be reworded to "paid"
• returned home when her parents’ health began to decline "after" instead of "when" would sound a lot more natural here
• significant dates in the Nazi Party could probably be reworded to "dates significant to the Nazi Party" or "significant dates of the Nazi Party" for clarity
• What are "global matters"?
• Please define "Oberaufseherin" and "Kommandant" in the article text or consider wikilinking them (preferably both) for non-German speakers

Trial:

• Is it known how Mandl learnt Polish, considering she's from Austria?
• "Echo Krakowa" should be italicized, since it is a magazine

References review to follow....
Overall a very well written article, and you should be proud, especially since this is your first GAN (its way better than my first). Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh no, please don't worry! I sincerely hope all is well. Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article and for your kind words—it genuinely means a lot.

I have just published an edit addressing all of your concerns. I apologize for the short lead, it admittedly is my weak point and I was concerned about being repetitive. Thank you for your guidance. As for the "Early life" section, I have looked everywhere—books, journals, German sources, etc. I even double-checked whilst making this last edit to make sure I didn't miss anything, but all other sources don't mention anything beyond Mandl's date of birth, birthplace, and the fact her father was a shoemaker. The only source that offers any in-depth look into her adolescence is Susan Eischeid's work. The content was obtained through interviews with survivors, so I am confident in its reliability. I completely understand your concern, though, and I do wish I had another source to add. — Staniulis ✿ 05:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I also want to add that the inclusion of "global issues" as part of the Aufseherin training program was a mistake on my part. It was a misreading of the source, which I have just referred back to. I apologize for the confusion and thank you for pointing it out. — Staniulis ✿ 05:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ref review:

1. 5: Checks out
2. 6: Checks out
3. 24: Checks out
4. 30: Checks out
5. 39: Checks out

With that out of the way, it would be my pleasure to pass the review. Again, the article is really good, and you should be proud about this being your first attempt. I look forward to following your work in the future. Best regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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.