Jump to content

Talk:Emil Utitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk12:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the philosopher Emil Utitz, a classmate of Franz Kafka, became the head librarian of Theresienstadt Ghetto? Source: Wolfradt, Uwe; Billmann-Mahecha, Elfriede; Stock, Armin (2014-11-21). Deutschsprachige Psychologinnen und Psychologen 1933–1945: Ein Personenlexikon, ergänzt um einen Text von Erich Stern (in German). Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-658-01481-0.
    • ALT1:... that the philosopher Emil Utitz was head librarian of Theresienstadt Ghetto and spent three months after the liberation there to oversee the disbanding of the library? Source: Miriam Intrator: ""People were literally starving for any kind of reading": The Theresienstadt Ghetto Central Library, 1942-1945" https://muse.jhu.edu/article/213101

Moved to mainspace by Kusma (talk). Self-nominated at 21:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • . Excellent, superbly sourced article. Tragic, deeply affecting story. No copyright issues, nommed the day it was moved to mainspace, hook cited, QPQ done. I can access doi:10.1353/lib.2007.0009 and the complete text of the biographical dictionary cited for the Kafka part but am mildly AGFing on the "classmate of Kafka" bit because I don't read German (but I do see Kafka referenced on the page, and Google tells me "zusammen" means "together"). I prefer alt0 and might actually delete the Kafka bit because it blunts the effect of the statement that there was a librarian at Theresienstadt. Your choice. Also, how are Nazi propaganda films not in the public domain??? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review, glad you like it. For Kafka, there's also this class photograph to prove it (Utitz middle of the front row, Kafka second from left in the top row). The propaganda films might belong to (the heirs of) the people who were forced to make them, so under that assumption will be copyrighted until 70 years after their deaths. —Kusma (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

Kusma (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Emil Utitz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kusma (talk · contribs) 17:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this review. Comments to follow within the next few days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

General comments

[edit]
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.