Template:Did you know nominations/Old City Hall (Berlin)

Old City Hall (Berlin)

 * ... that the Old City Hall (pictured) in Berlin was bombed in World War II, which caused 50% damage to the building?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ganjuran Church
 * Comment: Moved from userspace.

Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ done.  New enough and long enough at time of nomination.  Hook is properly formatted. Images meet copyright standards.  Article is completely supported by inline sources.  Hooked fact is found in text and supported by inline citation.  Article reads as neutral enough to me though possible puffery with words like "monumental".   Very little of this though.
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg  Offline sources support text and were not plagiarised to write. File:2009-07-26-berlin-by-RalfR-34.jpg is an acceptable copyright for front page of Wikipedia despite little red hand with warning.  It has the copyright tags that really seem to support it being the right copyright in English and is used elsewhere.--LauraHale (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to go. I might chose not to have a picture just to be on the safe side but up to the mover. --LauraHale (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How is File:Berlin, Mitte, Molkenmarkt, Altes Stadthaus 01.jpg? Thanks! ⇒ T A  P  15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks better to me with no little red hand. :) --LauraHale (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I am afraid this is not yet ready. This is a translation of the German wikipedia article (it did not have the required credit, so I added a template), and the translation is inaccurate and hard to understand. I have begun to fix it up, but it will take me a while (at least 24 hours), especially since new material is still being added that also requires fixing. I will also check the references, since some of the sentences that have references are based on misunderstanding of the German wikipedia article. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking over the history, the text was attributed. ⇒ T A  P  20:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I too late? Because "... damaging half the building." would be a better phrasing, imo. Or if we were open to a more sweeping rewrite:
 * ALT2 ... half of Berlin's Old City Administration Building (pictured) was damaged by bombing in World War II?

this would have the advantage of tightening the hook, removing the need for the dependent clause, and adding a pertinent link to the bombing main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's taking me a while, but I am rewriting the article. (I've also moved it.) There are several better potential hooks, for example:
 * ALT3... that the Old City Administration Building in Berlin includes the "Bear Hall", a ceremonial space that was added by the architect on his own initiative? and:
 * ALT4 ... that the Council of Ministers of the GDR removed the statue of a Berlin bear from the Old City Administration Building to the East Berlin zoo?
 * but the referencing needs redoing. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What's a bit interesting, I think, is that the "Bear Hall" lost its titular bear in 1959, and so in that sense I do think Yngvadottir is onto something, too... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've just completed the rewrite, including the return of the bear in 2001. The melting down of poor Fortuna and her replacement via tower crane, paid for by a generous benefactor, and the partial defrayal of renovation costs by a billboard for a UK cellphone company are other possibilities. Assuming I can find refs. That is the remaining step. I'll be combining/shortening paragraphs I cannot reference. Unfortunately since the German article became an FA in 2006, one of the two newspapers it was heavily based on has gone completely paywalled. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm new to DYK but I should think the reader might feel a little "cheated" if the hook is buried too deep in an article, as much of the bear business now is. This article has been expanded to such a great extent that I wonder we should agree on a hook first, then tweak the lead accordingly? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wonder about the article title. The translation of a simple term like "Altes Stadthaus" is awkward and misleading, I understood "Old City" but it should problably mean "City administration". If you ask me, stay with the German name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Ready for re-review! Finally! I've given myself a credit for this one (but someone who understands the templates needs to create a subpage because the article has moved). The article has been retranslated (with translation of omitted parts) and in large part rewritten, and the referencing redone and somewhat updated. I have moved it to the best title I could come up with; someone had already created a redirect from Altes Stadthaus, and someone needs to create an article for the actual Old Town Hall, which as the former title is currently a redirect to this article, but is actually a different, now demolished building. Until then and the provision of a hatnote, the best I can do to make the nomenclature make sense to English-speaking readers is the informational note that I have added near the start of the article. I have struck out ALT2 because I haven't been able to fully reference it. The original hook is still a possibility, as is ALT3, but I'd now like to add:
 * ALT3A ... that a 400 kg (880 lb) statue of a Berlin bear was removed from the Old City Administration Building to the East Berlin zoo in 1959, but was returned in 2001 after the zoo was given a replica?
 * ALT4 ... that a Vodafone advertisement and the donation of a replica statue of Fortuna for the tower dome helped defray the costs of renovating the Old City Administration Building in Berlin?
 * @Shawn in Montreal: It's actually common for the hook fact to come late in the article - a result of the requirements for it to be just one fact, or at least to fit within 200 characters, and to be interesting, so it's often the quirky thing that is mentioned right at the end of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Article not fully by sources.  Cannot move forward until this is done. --LauraHale (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the confusion about buildings with similar titles which are the result of ambiguous translations, I wonder why the articles are not named Altes Stadthaus, Berlin and Altes Rathaus, Berlin? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the naming rules tend to favour the English version. In any case, NOT a DYK criteria and should be taken to the article's talk page.  The DYK issue is not completely supported by sources. --LauraHale (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it to the article talk, but hope for a change and would prefer if it would not appear under a misleading name and afterwards be moved. The article Mitte (locality) - what a name! - has this and many other Berlin sights in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which things still need to be referenced?--Yngvadottir (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagged to make it clear. --LauraHale (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also made clear on the article talk that there are claims regarding the naming of the building that are not supported by sources. Favouring English is one thing, creating a name that I find in no source is another, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I mention this should be taken to the talk page? This is an issue of translation and English Wikipedia policy regarding using English names vs. local names and best takes place on the talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't I say I took it to the talk page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And then you commented here again on the topic. If you think this issue is important enough to hold up the review, then slap a rename tag proposal on the article as that temporarily disqualifies it until that is resolved. --LauraHale (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still hope that without formalities a move of the article will happen sooner than solving the referencing issues. I just see this "name" as another unsupported claim, thinking that IS relevant to the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that the Altes Stadthaus (pictured) in Berlin was bombed in World War II, which caused 50% damage to the building?


 * Symbol question.svg Symbol question.svg I really, really want to pass this. "The imposing building was generally well received by Berliners. It created a focal point between the Molkenmarkt and the Parochialkirche, as the nearby Red City Hall did between the Alexanderplatz and St. Nicholas' Church, and was often referred to as the "second city hall". Statistically, it considerably exceeded the Red City Hall, where the City Council actually met: it could accommodate some 1,000 city employees, while the Red City Hall accommodated only 317; and it was also physically larger, approximately 12,600 square metres (136,000 sq ft) to the older building's 9,000 square metres (97,000 sq ft)." That bit has a fact tag on it. There remain at least one other fact tag.  Can we please get these resolved to move on? --LauraHale (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg If there are fact tags needing to be resolved, then the tick seems premature. I can't promote this under the circumstances, and wanted to do so. Also, it's important to state which ALTs are approved and which are not. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol fail. Changed.  Sorry about that.  Yeah.  NOT GOOD TO GO~  Until the fact tags are resolved and a hook I can review is presented, no point in reviewing.  Nominator and article improvers PING me when these are resolved. We're not going to be good to go EVER until this is fully supported.--LauraHale (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Article was renamed. I like the former 3a:
 * ALT2 ... that a 400 kg (880 lb) statue of the Berlin bear was removed from the city administrative building Altes Stadthaus (pictured) and given to the East Berlin zoo in 1959?


 * As for the unreferenced sections: I feel that the article would be good even without them. Could they be commented? I am not familiar with the content and the sources, just know that German articles often take their facts from books in general without referencing single facts by single pages. I know the problem of finding sources for single facts in retrospect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ps: This is the translation of a German "Exzellenter Artikel", the equivalent of a Featured Article. I know that facts from other Wikipedias are not trusted, but I believe that the figures in this one have been checked in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Right then, I've referenced a bit and cut a lot off. Should be OK now. ⇒ T A  P  21:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT2 ... that a 400 kg (880 lb) statue of the Berlin bear was removed from the city administrative building Altes Stadthaus (pictured) and given to the East Berlin zoo in 1959?

PARTIAL RE-REVIEW BASED ON DIRECTLY ALT2 ABOVE. Article is completely supported by inline citations. Picture in hook has acceptable copyright. Hooked fact appears to be supported by sources. (Looked through this which was cited for Bärensaal around dates. "Ich denke, sie würden sagen, daß diese Zeit zwar nicht ihre beste, dafür aber ihre spannendste war und vielleicht würden sie hinzufügen, wie sehr sie sich freuen, wieder im alten Glanz zu erstrahlen und daß ihr Glück geradezu vollständig wäre, wenn sie vom Tierpark ihren Bären, der seit 1959 dort seinen Dienst versieht, wieder bekämen." is cited by the article and supports this fact. FINALLY.  Good to go with ALT2 as written directly above final review. --LauraHale (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)