Template:Did you know nominations/Nele Hertling
- The following 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 MeegsC (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nele Hertling
- ... that Nele Hertling (pictured), working for the Academy of Arts, Berlin, brought innovative culture to the city including the Tanz im August festival? Source: [1] and others
- Reviewed: Viran Rydkvist
Created by LouisAlain (talk), Grimes2 (talk), and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 12:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, and most core policies seem to be met. I'm curious about the image in the article though - it seems to have four different licence templates on it. Shouldn't it just have one? Re the hook, I'm slightly concerned about the phrase "brought innovative culture to the city". Saying it's innovative sounds like an opinion, rather than objective fact, and it should probably be included in the article as an attributed quote rather than in WP:WIKIVOICE. Other than that, the hook is cited and sufficiently interesting. And QPQ is done. So, let's address the two issues above, and then this one's good to go. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- It may be my lack of English, but "innovative" sound factual to me, summarising the different new ways and formats and concepts she introduced. If not, is there a different word? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I know practically nothing about image licensing, and wonder if we should remove three, but which? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: it appears that the dictionary definition of innovation is simply something new, so I guess this isn't really a matter of opinion in this case and I can't think of any particular alternative way to say it. I've also removed two of the licences from the file, just leaving the cc-by-sa-3.0-de one which is probably the intended original licence. So this is good to go. Signing off. Sorry for the delay in coming back to it! — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)