Template:Did you know nominations/Haus Cumberland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Haus Cumberland[edit]

The Haus Cumberland in Charlottenburg, Berlin

Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 17:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • 2657 characters, QPQ okay, meet guidelines (references/citations/neutrality). Hook fact is sourced by a non-english site, but a simple Google Translation looks fine. Theopolisme 21:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The hook fact "breaking down the left side of the roof" is not supported by an inline source citation after the sentence where it is given, as required by the rules. Furthermore, the immediately succeeding sentence, about the dome, is incomprehensible. Both of these things need to be fixed before this nomination can proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think there's a language issue here. Revisiting this section, I can't tell whether "breaking down the left side of the roof" or "broke down the left side of the roof", means that the fire caused the left side of the roof to collapse (fall in), or that the fire ran down the left side of the roof or engulfed the left side? This is unfortunately unclear. The following sentence is now incomprehensible in a new and different way: "The dome of the first courtyard, made of galvanized steel, of the collapsed." What does "of the collapsed" mean? It makes no sense in English. Did the dome itself collapse, did the courtyard? Or did something else happen? Perhaps you can get assistance from a Wikipedia colleague on rewording this section. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I had to make a few additional changes for clarity and conciseness. Is it still factually correct? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Striking original hook, and proposing revised ALT1 to reflect the recent clarifications in the article:
  • New reviewer needed for ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with ALT1 and I concur with Theopolisme's review. I've made a few minor tweaks to the article but otherwise it looks good. Prioryman (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)