Talk:Hilda Dajč

GA review

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

Nominator: Aeengath (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alanna the Brave (talk · contribs) 22:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll take on this review -- comments to come over the next few days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Alanna the Brave much appreciated Aeengath (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Okay -- this article is looking pretty solid. It's broad and well-focused (I'm not left with many lingering questions), and it's both stable and neutral. The prose is well-written. The source material seems generally reliable. A scan by Earwig's copy-vio tool doesn't show any issues of concern. I've completed a manual spot check of some of the English-language citations, with a handful of small sourcing or paraphrasing issues located -- I may do a further spot check of other sources after this, depending on what else I can access. I'll list my initial comments and suggestions below:

Main article text & images

• The fair-use photo of Dajč and the plaque memorial photo look properly tagged/licensed, but the photo of Pavilion No. 3 is lacking details about origin, year of creation/publication, and a rationale tag for why it should be considered public domain in the U.S. (even if it's not an American photo, it still needs to be public domain under American copyright rules because Wikipedia hosts its servers in the U.S.). You'll either need to confirm its copyright status or remove/replace the photo.

Removed the Pavilion No. 3 image; couldn't establish US PD status.

Added a scan of a page from Dajč's third letter to the Letters section, confirmed public domain (author died 1942, unpublished until 2005) via this Village Pump discussion before uploading.

• The Lead section says Dajč's letters "constitute the only known written testimony by Jewish prisoners of the camp", while the Legacy section says that they're "virtually the only preserved documents written by Jewish prisoners at Sajmište". Which phrasing is more accurate? I feel like the word "virtually" suggests that the letters are "almost but not quite" the only documents written by Jewish prisoners at the camp.

Updated the lead to match source.

• The article begins by referring to the concentration camp as "Sajmište" (with an explanation of Zemun vs. Semlin as names for the nearby town), but throughout the Letters section and part of the Persecution & Imprisonment section the camp is referred to as "Semlin". I think "Sajmište" should be consistently used for the camp.

Agreed, standardised to "Sajmište" throughout.

• "While imprisoned, Dajč wrote and smuggled four letters to her schoolmates Nada Novak and Mirjana Petrović, both members of the Literary Society." --> What literary society was this? Were Novak and Petrović both in Belgrade and/or working at the Jewish hospital? I'm wondering whether they survived and how Dajč's letters were ultimately preserved.

Added society details per Almuli 2010, p.34; couldn't confirm either woman's Belgrade location or hospital connection from sources checked, so left that unaddressed. Added Almuli's account of how the letters were preserved.

• "Dajč's letters were first published by Almuli in the anthology..." --> This paragraph should probably be shifted into the Legacy section alongside other publication/archival info.

Moved, agreed it fits better there.

• The mobile gas van "resulted in the murder of approximately 6,300 Jews, nearly all those detained at Semlin, including Dajč's parents and her younger brother Hans." --> When were Dajč's family detained at Semlin? Were they there at the same time as Dajč? I understood that her father's position on the Vertretung der jüdischen Gemeinde gave him some protection, and I can't locate within the text when that situation changed.

Found that her father was interned by end of 1941 and served in the camp administration(VEJ vol. 14, p.426); murdered February 1942 (same source, p.367). Mother and brother Hans were also interned there but no dates provided. Added both to Persecution and imprisonment.

Sources & Spot Check

• The 2010 Almuli book citation has a broken Google Books link (404 error).

Fixed.

• "A number of Roma women and children were also detained but were released in the spring of 1942." --> Subotić doesn't specify the genders/ages of the Roma prisoners.

Replaced with more details from Winstone 2010 (p.404),

• "Dajč appeared thin and pale and seemed increasingly dejected and desperate." --> This could use stronger paraphrasing (a little too close to original).

Reworded.

• "Between her last known letter in early February 1942 and 10 May 1942, a mobile gas van, referred to by the German authorities as a "delousing truck" (Entlausungswagen), was used to kill prisoners from the camp..." --> Can you double-check the page #? It's cited as pp. 52-53 of Subotić (I can't access those pages), but all this information is clearly listed on pp. 2-3 of the same source.

Checked pp.52–53 which support the dates and gas van mechanism. Traced "Entlausungswagen" to its actual source: Turner's April 1942 letter to Karl Wolff (Lebl 2007, p.331) so cited that instead. Softened the end date to 9–10 May since Friedlander and Subotić differ by a day.

• The mobile gas van "resulted in the murder of approximately 6,300 Jews, nearly all those detained at Semlin, including Dajč's parents and her younger brother Hans." --> The cited sources (Subotić and Experiencing History) don't confirm that the whole family was murdered, only that they died at Sajmište.

Reworded and replaced source with Berger et al. 2017 (VEJ vol. 14, p.410), which confirms that the family was interned and murdered at Sajmište and also gives father's date of death.

Extras

• In terms of MOS: this isn't necessary for meeting basic GA criteria, but I'm wondering if it might be appropriate to apply historical present or "literary present tense" to the direct discussion of the contents of Dajč's four letters (e.g., "Dajč explains her decision to enter the camp as an act of conscience" and "She also expresses optimism about the assistance she hoped to provide"). Dajč's written words are critically important to this article, and they form the core of the discussion about her experiences -- I don't think it would be incorrect to view the letters as literature. MOS states that biographies can use present tense "when discussing the work of a writer or philosopher". What do you think?

Yes, I changed all four letters to present tense for what each describes, keeping past tense for the surrounding events.

Thanks for your work on this article. It's a tough read, but it's so important to preserve and make accessible the stories of Hilda Dajč and others like her. Let me know when you're done responding to my comments, and I'll come take another look. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: Thank you, that means a lot coming from you. Aeengath (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aeengath: This is looking excellent -- you've covered all my queries/requests. I completed another spot check of additional sources and didn't find any issues there, but I also did one final scan of the article with Earwig's copyvio tool, and I spotted one thing that I'd missed earlier: the phrase "Her letters are virtually the only preserved documents written by Jewish prisoners at Sajmište" is almost identical to the cited source material phrasing (USHMM). Can you tweak that? Once that line is better paraphrased in both the lead and the main text, I'm prepared to pass Hilda Dajč as a GA article. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: Fixed in both the lead and Legacy section. Thank you for the careful eye throughout this review. Hilda's story took a lot of research across several languages and archives to get right and I appreciate you pushing on the details. Aeengath (talk) Aeengath (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)