A fact from Ludwig Gies appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 October 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Ludwig Gies designed the eagle (pictured) found hung at the front of the Plenary Hall of the modern Reichstag Building in Berlin?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The Introduction states that the Crucifix was "soon to be considered ....degenerate art". No context (not even a date) is given for why it would "soon" be regarded as degenerate. This is very confusing for anyone who doesn't already have a considerable amount of knowledge about the period. When was it considered degenerate and by whom?
"the head of Christ and one of the rays were professionally struck off." The only people who "professionally" strike of heads are executioners.
Your source doesn't say that the head was "professionally" struck off. Your source says it was done in a "workmanlike manner" which, at the time was thought to indicate someone had been hied to do the job, but really proves nothing. "Professionally" is the wrong word.
"often bizarrely cut". I have no idea what "bizarrely cut" means. Does it mean that the things were "bizarrely shaped"? What does your source actually say?
"woodcarving which displayed similarities to medieval devotional figures projecting distorted anguish"
Your source doesn't say that the figures were "projecting" distorted anguish. The source says "in distorted anguish" which is a different matter. I think the sentence needs stating differently.
A couple of these points are for people with access to the sources cited, which I don't have, (Oh, Googlebooks). Minor re-phrasing carried out. The expression "bizarrely cut" is a direct translation from the German article ("bizarr geschnittene [Reliefs]"), and I don't have any problem with it, but since you do, I've reworded it.Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On "professional" vs "workmanlike", the source (which by the way isn't "my" source, just a source) is itself only a translation of a comment by Heise, who apparently didn't use either "workmanlike" or "professional" but the German word "fachgerecht", which is in between the two. So I've left it. But there's nothing to prevent you from making whatever edits you think good!Jsmith1000 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
