Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IG Farben Building

IG Farben Building
Historically and architecturally important building in Frankfurt, Germany. This article started as a major rewrite by means of a translation of the original German FA article. I've since added some facts and inline citations lacking from the German version and had it peer reviewed Here. I think it meets the criteria. --Mcginnly 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Object Prose and underreferenced. A personal (angelfire.com) website is an oft-cited source. Object removed, nice job! Sandy 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Switched to support after copy edit.  Sandy 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its six square wings retains a modern, spare elegance despite the mammoth size of the building.
 * In 1975, the U. S. renamed the building as the "General Creighton W. Abrams Building".[1]
 * After the U. S. forces returned control of the I.G. Farben building back to the German government in 1995, it was sold to the state of Hessen, which purchased it on behalf of the University of Frankfurt.[1] Sandy 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Sandy. I've made some more grammatical adjustments. The problem with referencing, is that there are plenty of German sites I could reference but the guidance prefers english citations on the the english wiki. Angelfire.com confirms much of the german source material so I've referenced it quite a bit. It may be a personal site but it's factual content can be verified. Perhaps you'd have another look and let me know what you think. I would gladly reference German language sites if you thought it appropriate.--Mcginnly 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with the references is apparent in the lead.  built from 1928–1930[1] or 31[2] [3]   One reference states that it was "built in only 24 months", 1928-1930, while the other states 1928-1931. (And you've got the references backwards, I think.  Reference 1 says 1928 - 1932 1931, but you have it to 1928 - 1930.)  From the lead, the reader finds a problem with these informal sources, calling into question the integrity of the remainder of the article.  These sorts of things need to be worked out with research for an FA:  I can't support an FA which relies on a personal websites; even less when those websites offer conflicting information.  Sandy 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrected my typo in dates, above. Sandy 23:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Completion dates can always be problematic with buildings. Is the moment of completion when workmen leave the site or when the building is occupied? On this site it is quite possible the main block was completed in 1930 and the casino in 1931. The sources don't make this explicitly clear, there is disagreement amongst them. I have amended the lead to read built from 1928-1930/31 and cited the various sources inline with each date. Whilst only 2 sources state completion as occuring in 1930 these are from the fritz bauer institute and the university of frankfurt, so I am inclined to included them as reliable sources rather than just plump for the majority who say completion occured in 1931. I've also corrected the erroneous link. Angelfire.com is now cited much less than before. The other point here is that this is a translation of a German FA which cited only 2 sources. My understanding is that it is only necessary for the references to be reliable. Is the angelfire site considered  unreliable? If it is then it's been mirrored in a number of locations including greatbuildings online here and also here, which would usually be considered a reliable source. Yes it's been written by an ex-soldier who has eye-wittness experience of the building, but it's generally well researched and represents a US Army POV. Nonetheless if you give me a day or two I'll endeavour to improve the referencing situation.--Mcginnly 09:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've completed re-citing the majority of the article to encompass other english sites and 2 comprehensive german sites all from reliable sources. Please let me know what you think. --Mcginnly 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Back for a second look, after referencing work.
 * I'm not sure what is going on in the References. The in-line citations should be Notes, and what is the list at the bottom?  Is that Further reading, or References?  In-line citations (Notes) should be in a separate section from Further reading or References that are just below them.
 * Please list bibliographic info for each reference, so that the sources can be located should the websites become unavailable. For example, your first reference includes information about author, date, etc., that should be included in the citation listing:  Autor: Linke, Vera Fachbereich: Soziologie - Wohnen, Stadtsoziologie  Kategorie: Hausarbeit  Jahr: 2002 Archivnummer: K20840.  Another example would be:
 * Johnson, Dirk (Summer 2005). Modern Languages: Professor Johnson Continues Research in Germany.  Retrieved on 2006-07-17.
 * Prose: In the first sentence of the article, a typo is found: The Poelzig-Building or the IG-Farben-Building (also know as the Poelzig-Ensemble or Poelzig-Complex, and previously as the IG-Farben-Complex, and the General Creighton W. Abrams Building) was designed by Hans Poelzig and built from 1928–1930[1]/ 31[2] as the corporate headquarters of the IG Farben conglomerate in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.  That is too much information to wind through, and doesn't encourage the reader to continue reading.  When you add in the confusion over the dates, it is off-putting to the reader from the onset.  Further, the name of the article is IG Farben building, but the reader encounters a different name first.  The lead needs to be restructured and made more user-friendly.  This is only a sample from the lead.
 * Conflicting terminology: IG Farben, IG-Farben, I.G. Farben, and the Farben building.  Some refer to the company, some to the building, some to name changes, but the reader is left confused.  Is it possible to standardize terminology?
 * Random reference check: in the Recent years section, there are two very long paragraphs with no references.  The reader doesn't know the origin of this information, and we can't ask them to "take our word for it".  In the Building section, In 1928 IG-Farben was the fourth largest company in the world and the largest chemical company.  with no reference.
 * The article really must be referenced for FA, and another copy edit for the remaining prose items would help. Sandy 23:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the refences (min 1 per paragraph now, plus the potentially contentious claims, biggest largest etc.) and really read and re-read it. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated for punctuation typos etc. but fingers crossed we might be 3rd time lucky. (thanks for you feedback by the way, I agree with DVD/RW, this level of thoroughness has improved the article no end).--Mcginnly 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

TheGrappler 14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - have a look through Reliable sources. Whether a reference is in English, German or Albanian isn't that big an issue; what matters most of all is that the source is reliable. If it happens to come from the personal website of a world famous architectural historian, that's great, but most personal websites are not. TheGrappler 05:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per my suggestions that have been attended to at Peer Review. One thing that doesn't look right is the sourcing for the building construction dates. It looks very confusing as it is. Good luck with the FAC. Newnam(talk) 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional support upon cleanup of Newnam's criticism. Apart from that, it's very good. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done that, I've kept the 2 completion dates with the 2 most reliable sources as inline citations. If there's ambiguity in the sources I think this should be reflected in the article. --Mcginnly 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. My concern at peer review was the lack of refs, but they have now been supplied. I think SandyGeorgia is doing a great job with reviewing it at this stage, as Newnam did at peer review, and this process will further improve this excellent article. DVD+ R/W 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response - I've finally found a reliable citable source (In German) for the completion date confusion. The buildings were completed in 1930 but the parkland and grounds in 1931 - so the complex (as a whole) is listed as complete in 1931. I've amended the article accordingly. --Mcginnly 10:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Could a properly cited reference be given for the plaque? I'm not certain that "Quotations" is an accurate section heading. Also, while the "References" listed were indeed references for the original German article, they do not appear to be being used to support any of the information in this article as it stands. As such they are really "Further reading" and not "References" at all - instead, the section labelled "Notes" is actually the "References" section and should be headed as such. I'm pretty sure that "Article based on this edit: of the original German featured article: IG Farben Haus." is a WP:SELF-reference that ought to be avoided. Besides, this article is now no longer based (at least in reference terms) on that article; it already appears as an interwiki link, and I can see no convincing reason to maintain a link to the version that it was at some point translated from. TheGrappler 13:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've amended the headings as per your suggestions - the plaque is now in a section entitled Translation of commemorative plaque, it was intended as a form of footnote, quotation was the nearest standard heading section I could think of, but a non-standard is more appropriate in this case. I've kept a mention of the tranlsation (but not the version) in line with guidance on Translation into English which states Please do indicate in the references section of the newly created article that an article in a foreign-language Wikipedia was among your sources. For example, the references section of the article "Paragraph 175" begins, "Much of the content of this article comes from the equivalent German-language wikipedia article (retrieved September 30, 2004). The following references are cited by that German-language article..."--Mcginnly | Natter 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Image:Poelzigplan.jpg lacks source information. If it under the GFDL license then the author must be credited: saying that the source is the German Wikipedia is emphatically not good enough. This is actually a copyright violation! GFDL images are "free" but only to a certain extent: the author does not give up all rights, and one reserved right is that the author needs to be credited. I recommend translating the information at de:Bild:Poelzigplan.jpg and including it on the Commons image.
 * Amended as per your suggestion. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: Meets all criteria and is a very thorough and complete page. Giano | talk 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The architecture is interesting enough, but it's about so much more than that. I've copy-edited the text, and left two inline queries&mdash;one about the need for a reference, and one about a term. Tony 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've provided the citation you requested. Regarding the term 'building conclusion' pertaining to the top storey, I wouldn't say it's a 'technical term' such as Entablature or Cornice. It is however, a common term to discuss where a building ends and something else starts (the sky in this case). "The empire state building concludes with an aerial" would be ok I'd have thought. It can work horizontally as well to describe processionary routes through buildings:- "Canary wharf underground station's procession of palm-like central concrete columns, conclude with a gently curved glass dome over the escalators." --Mcginnly | Natter 03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: This article well documents a structure with strong social significance at many levels including but not limited to war, commerce, organization, construction, and style. --M0llusk 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per above &mdash; M in  un  Spiderman &bull; Review Me 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice article on an interesting building. Burschik 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)