Talk:Altes Stadthaus, Berlin/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Elekhh (talk · contribs) 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Will place the review on hold until these are addressed. -- ELEKHHT 06:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a comprehensive, very well illustrated, well structured and outstandingly well focused article. Only have a few minor points to raise, which can be fixed easily.
 * The lead should provide a better summary, by an article of this length in max. three paragraphs. I think the convoluted history of the building's uses and renovations starting with the substantial WWII damage, well described in the longest section of the article, is not yet well summarised in the lead ✅ ⇒ T A P  23:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox inconsistency: (a) Height is indicated as 76m while the article states approx. 80m. (could be the statue the difference?); ✅ ⇒ T A P  23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (b) The field "Landlord" seems unnecessary as the "owner" is also the occupier. ✅ ⇒ T A  P  23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (c) The floor area of 12,600 sqm is unreferenced. ✅ ⇒ T A  P  23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Is this net or gross area? The figure gives the impression that the 1,000 employees must have been very crammed. (d) the characterisation of the whole building as Palladian is also unreferenced. Given that the main hall is Jugendstil, and the architect is described as historicist the building as a whole is probably rather eclectic. In absence of a good ref I would rather remove the label. ✅ ⇒ T A  P  23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Layout: the building plan would be better placed near the "specifications" section, where the configuration of the building is explained. Overall it would be better if the three drawings would be grouped together as in the German Wiki article. ✅ ⇒ T A P  23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead image: I think the image File:Berlin-Stadthaus-gp.jpg is better quality and could replace the lead image. The second image of the main Molkenmarkt façade seems superfluous. ✅ ⇒ T A P  23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - i'll leave the main review to Elekhh, just two quick comments:
 * The caption for "Window detail" is a bit on the minimalist side :). Could a bit of context be added: why is this window detail notable? is this some specific style? which direction faces this window? ✅ ⇒ T A P  23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a German i am not sure about Note a: "A distinction is made in German ...": technically there is no fix rule in Germany, how such administrative buildings are named (aside from "Rathaus" for the main administration usually), i have seen "Stadthaus", "Stadtzentrum", "Gemeindezentrum", "Bürgerhaus" and lots more. ==> Maybe clarify, that this is the common Berlin usage. ✅ ⇒ T A P  23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) GermanJoe (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks GermanJoe, good observations. I always welcome additional comments to reviews I conduct, so if you come across anything else please don't hesitate to add. Also as a general note, while the review is focused on GA criteria, issues beyond that and leading towards FA might also be raised, although not considered when making the final assessment regarding the GA nomination. -- ELEKHHT 01:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. ⇒ T A  P  23:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did some edits myself which hope further improve it. Will have a final look tomorrow before closing it. In the meanwhile any comments welcome. -- ELEKHHT 00:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Some more comments - mostly minor issues, not distracting from the overall quality of the article. Overall a nice, enjoyable article with many interesting information. GermanJoe (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1993 renovation (see infobox) ==> The section Complete refurbishment in the 1990s is a bit vague on the 1993 renovation. The first para explains, what "needed to be done" and what was "urgent", but doesn't spell out, which immediate actions were really taken in 1993 and which were delayed to 1994. ✅ from infobox. ⇒ T A P  07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * During the Weimar Republic - "These plans had to be abandoned in 1931 because of the political and economic situation." ==> vague, can you add one main cause for "politics" and "economy" each or is the reasoning too complex? ✅ ⇒ T A P  07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Post-war - "By 1950, 45% of the necessary repairs had been made to Altes Stadthaus by a few simple expedients such as emergency roofing." ==> This one seems out of chronological time-line, followed by post-war 1948 events. Maybe use it later as intro sentence for the next para? ✅ ⇒ T A P  07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Complete refurbishment- "In 2008, plans were announced for the Constitutional Protection Division of the State Department of Internal Affairs to also move to the building, after which all divisions of the department would be housed there." ==> Any update on that plan? If not, maybe clarify with "...; as of 2012 these plans are still considered in the city council" or a similar description of the actual status. ✅ ⇒ T A P  07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

✅. ⇒ T A  P  07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Promoted. Thanks to all involved for the good work on this article. Hope to see the article one day at FA. Thanks to GermanJoe for the meticulous co-reviewing. -- ELEKHHT 04:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)