* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] For me, the article meets the nomination criteria (technically, 7 days and a few hours from creation to nomination, but close enough). It is well-designed and very well-documented. For an image, I would suggest this [[File:Dieckmann erich moebelbau 1931.jpg|thumb|140x140px|Dieckmann erich moebelbau 1931]], which has been published very frequently, as it is his book. (On https://imjustcreative.com/erich-dieckmann-metal-tube-chair/2019/12/15, for example) and a new beginning ”'[[Erich Dieckmann (furniture designer)|Erich Dieckmann]]”’ designed furniture that grew organically and wasn’t cobbled together—from an elephant’s body, a bay leaf, a spider’s leg, if you will. (from his quote) ([[User talk:Birkho|talk]]) [[User:Birkho|Birkho]] ([[User talk:Birkho|talk]]) 08:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] For me, the article meets the nomination criteria (technically, 7 days and a few hours from creation to nomination, but close enough). It is well-designed and very well-documented. For an image, I would suggest this [[File:Dieckmann erich moebelbau 1931.jpg|thumb|140x140px|Dieckmann erich moebelbau 1931]], which has been published very frequently, as it is his book. (On https://imjustcreative.com/erich-dieckmann-metal-tube-chair/2019/12/15, for example) and a new beginning ”'[[Erich Dieckmann (furniture designer)|Erich Dieckmann]]”’ designed furniture that grew organically and wasn’t cobbled together—from an elephant’s body, a bay leaf, a spider’s leg, if you will. (from his quote) ([[User talk:Birkho|talk]]) [[User:Birkho|Birkho]] ([[User talk:Birkho|talk]]) 08:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Birkho}} I’m confused why you have left a review here. Maybe it is different on dewiki, but on enwiki the DYK process only requires a single reviewer, and it’s generally best for the reviewer not to be someone who has been a major contributor to the article. I suggest you strike your review (or at least remove the symbol) to avoid confusion. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 23:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article is new enough (technically 7 days and a few hours from creation to nomination, but close enough) and long enough. It is well-sourced, neutral, copyvio-free, and presentable. A new hook is needed (see [[WP:HOOK]]) – the current hook is improperly formatted, does not appear in the article, and is not verified by the given citation. I am also concerned about the image – the source is a non-functional link with no further details, making it impossible to verify that it was actually anonymously published. Either a correct link that verifies the anonymous publication needs to be found, or the image should be removed from this nomination. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 00:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article is new enough (technically 7 days and a few hours from creation to nomination, but close enough) and long enough. It is well-sourced, neutral, copyvio-free, and presentable. A new hook is needed (see [[WP:HOOK]]) – the current hook is improperly formatted, does not appear in the article, and is not verified by the given citation. I am also concerned about the image – the source is a non-functional link with no further details, making it impossible to verify that it was actually anonymously published. Either a correct link that verifies the anonymous publication needs to be found, or the image should be removed from this nomination. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 00:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Ariegel}} The revised hook is better, but it appears to be a broad summation of the article rather than a specific fact that is included in the article. The claimed source is not used in the article and does not contain any information other than birth/death dates. Additionally, the copyright issue with the image has not been resolved. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 23:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
* <!– REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE the FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING THE ASTERISK * –>
* <!– REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE the FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING THE ASTERISK * –>
Erich Dieckmann (furniture designer)
Erich Dieckmann, around 1924
- ….. that Erich Dieckmann, now largely forgotten, was one of the Bauhaus‘s key furniture designers and pioneered modular designs for mass production?
Ariegel (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC).
For me, the article meets the nomination criteria (technically, 7 days and a few hours from creation to nomination, but close enough). It is well-designed and very well-documented. For an image, I would suggest this
Dieckmann erich moebelbau 1931 , which has been published very frequently, as it is his book. (On https://imjustcreative.com/erich-dieckmann-metal-tube-chair/2019/12/15, for example) and a new beginning Erich Dieckmann designed furniture that grew organically and wasn’t cobbled together—from an elephant’s body, a bay leaf, a spider’s leg, if you will. (from his quote) (talk) Birkho (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
-
- @Birkho: I’m confused why you have left a review here. Maybe it is different on dewiki, but on enwiki the DYK process only requires a single reviewer, and it’s generally best for the reviewer not to be someone who has been a major contributor to the article. I suggest you strike your review (or at least remove the symbol) to avoid confusion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Article is new enough (technically 7 days and a few hours from creation to nomination, but close enough) and long enough. It is well-sourced, neutral, copyvio-free, and presentable. A new hook is needed (see WP:HOOK) – the current hook is improperly formatted, does not appear in the article, and is not verified by the given citation. I am also concerned about the image – the source is a non-functional link with no further details, making it impossible to verify that it was actually anonymously published. Either a correct link that verifies the anonymous publication needs to be found, or the image should be removed from this nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
-
- @Ariegel: The revised hook is better, but it appears to be a broad summation of the article rather than a specific fact that is included in the article. The claimed source is not used in the article and does not contain any information other than birth/death dates. Additionally, the copyright issue with the image has not been resolved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
