Template:Did you know nominations/Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities

Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities

 * ... that the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (pictured), rebuilt on the ashes of the historic Prussian Sciences Academy perverted by the Nazis, today counts 78 Nobel laureates among its membership?
 * Reviewed: Norefjell Ski Resort

Created/expanded by Ultracobalt (talk). Self nom at 06:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg DYKcheck confirms a 5x expansion to 6705 characters, photo is public domain and used in article. The hook has some problems: it's over the maximum 200 character length even not counting "pictured", "perverted" is non-neutral and not sourced, "rebuilt on the ashes of the historic Prussian Sciences Academy" is not accurate (there were intervening organizations), and the "78 Nobel prizewinners have shaped its history" from berlin-sciences.com, based on the context (coming after a sentence referring to a 300-year history) would seem to include previous institutions, not (as the hook implies) the post-reunification Academy's membership. In addition, the article itself, while well sourced, is not neutral in similar fashion to the hook: referring to Theodor Vahlen as "notorious" is inappropriate. Finally, the article is classified as a stub; while I think it's more than that, it cannot be passed while it is still rated a stub. Given these significant issues, checks have not yet been made for copyvio/close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to your points: The BBAW is officially designated a recreation of the old Academy, despite intervening organizations, but the non neutral word you cite can definitely be fixed. The inevitable length of the article's title makes hook length tricky but as it is 204 without (pictured), word adjustments can correct that. Fixing the ref to Vahlen is easy enough (done). Considering the historical sensitivities, I did take care to make the article WP:NPOV and request what other aspects you regard as non-neutral before I rewrite hook. As to "stub", the article was so labelled before expansion. I've never heard a non-stub designation is a prerequisite for DYK, particularly in cases of expansion, so I didn't remove it. Please cite policy as WP:WIADYK does not list this. -- Ultracobalt  &#32;(talk) 09:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording in the article says BBAW was created "on the original model of the old Prussian Academy" but not that it's a direct successor; if that were true, presumably the BBAW site (ref 11) wouldn't include the GDR years, but they do. While a couple of issues remain with NPOV, you were good overall in maintaining it aside from Vahlen: the "international fame" claim for the Prussian academy is problematic, especially as it is sourced from the non-neutral BBAW website, as is the description of Planck as "a broken man", which by implication leads the reader to think that it was due to the academy, while Planck's own article ascribes it to the death of his son Erwin in 1945. With regard to the stub, DYKcheck, the tool developed to check a number of issues in nominated articles, flags stubs as problematic (along with sourcing, size, and expansion), and rule D11 of WP:DYKSG applies. It's been enforced regularly ever since I have come on board, and makes sense to me: articles classified as stubs should not be highlighted on the main page. This article is surely eligible to be reclassified at a higher, non-stub level. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC), revised 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's wording on BBAW origin you object to, I can adjust. Re: Planck, the broken man reference is from the source cited, separate from his bio article which has its own issues and for which I am not the author. Planck was both a victim of and a collaborator with National Socialism, which tormented him, and that complexity is not properly covered in the bio. I merely summarized the point because this article isn't about him. Re: D11, all that rule states is any stub tag be removed if an article is long enough for DYK (1500 prose char) - are you going to do that or should I? -- Ultracobalt  &#32;(talk) 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My problem with the BBAW origin wording was in the hook, not the article. For Planck, if the cited source says "broken man", then my discomfort with the implication shouldn't stand in the way of a DYK. I have taken the liberty of reading over the WikiProject Germany article class standards, and have changed the rating of Stub class to C class. I've also made some WP:YEAR-based formatting edits to the article. At this point, aside from the "international fame" phrase, the article looks fine. If you would please propose a new hook, I would be happy to review it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed re the hook; "perverted" sounds silly and there's nothing about bomb damage; as it's been a fortnight, how about: Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that research projects of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (pictured) include classical inscriptions (IG, CIL) and dictionaries of Ancient Egyptian, of German, and of the works of Goethe?
 * ALT2 ... that projects of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (pictured) include the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, classical inscriptions (IG, CIL), and dictionaries of Ancient Egyptian and German?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Hmmm that's not terrifically exciting but it's verified etc. But I would like to tweak the hook, dropping Goethe (gasp! well, not Goethe but a dictionary thereof) in favor of the MGH, one of the most important publication projects of the last two centuries. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)