Template:Did you know nominations/Langwieder lake district
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Langwieder lake district
[edit]
- ... the Lußsee, once voted the cleanest lake in Munich, was originally an excavation pit from which more than 2,000,000 cubic metres of gravel were excavated for the construction of a nearby highway?
- Reviewed: Bud Weiser
Created/expanded by WilliamH (talk). Self nom at 20:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- In case foreign language citations are not the reviewer's forté, the sentence for consideration is "Neu hinzugekommen ist der angrenzende Lußsee, ein Nebenprodukt der Eschenrieder Spange. Mehr als zwei Millionen Kubikmeter Kies wurden für den Autobahnbau benötigt, zurück blieb ein 17 Hektar großer See." WilliamH (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
A few issues here. I think the word "See" should be translated. We have "holy see" but "See" heißt "sea" or "lake". The photo caption called it "lake" (which I thought should be capitalized as a proper noun). Also, I think you have an excessive use of articles, coming from familiarity with the German. I run into this myself all the time in my translations from German. German says, "zur / in die Schule" but English says "to school". I think there's no need to bring over the articles in this sentence either, "It opened in the year 2000 as a recreational area, and consists of the Langwieder See, the Lußsee, and the Birkensee." Doesn't that read just as well, if not better as "consists of Langwieder See, Lußsee, and Birkensee?" Thirdly, I personally like to see the languages identified in the refs so that non-speakers can identify the language. Otherwise, the article looks good. More on the review later today. Marrante (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention this before, I would also like to see conversions in there for the measurements in hectares, km & kg. Marrante (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I don't see what editorial purpose disambiguating (holy) see and see as in lake would serve, as it is highly unlikely the two are going to be confused. Secondly, the manual of style is to not translate "see" - take a look at w:Category:Lakes of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, for example. Your comment about using articles and associating with German is reasoned, but eliminating the article before the lakes themselves implies that they are settlements, which obviously isn't the case, and "in the year 2000" is simply good British English. I'll distinguish the references and insert imperial conversions though, those are certainly intuitive. WilliamH (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I stand corrected about the MOS, then. Seeing See rather than Sea just didn't seem right, it made me think of "holy see", which is why I mentioned it. Regarding conversions, it just seems a natural thing for me. I'm American, but I try to remember to do it because I know those measurements are simply not understood by a great many readers. I will have a last look at the article. Marrante (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, now I have a question about hyphens. I'm used to seeing "northwest" and northeast" as one word, rather than hyphenated, but the numbers associated with the parking lots (car park to you) should be hyphenated, 1,100-space and 700-space, shouldn't they? At least, that's how I was taught. Marrante (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I stand corrected about the MOS, then. Seeing See rather than Sea just didn't seem right, it made me think of "holy see", which is why I mentioned it. Regarding conversions, it just seems a natural thing for me. I'm American, but I try to remember to do it because I know those measurements are simply not understood by a great many readers. I will have a last look at the article. Marrante (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I don't see what editorial purpose disambiguating (holy) see and see as in lake would serve, as it is highly unlikely the two are going to be confused. Secondly, the manual of style is to not translate "see" - take a look at w:Category:Lakes of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, for example. Your comment about using articles and associating with German is reasoned, but eliminating the article before the lakes themselves implies that they are settlements, which obviously isn't the case, and "in the year 2000" is simply good British English. I'll distinguish the references and insert imperial conversions though, those are certainly intuitive. WilliamH (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
