Wikipedia:Peer review/Berlin/archive1

Berlin

You are very welcome to comment on this article. Is it already mature enough to promote it towards FA-candidate-procedure? Lear 21 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It generally is very good. I like the design and there are plenty of images to prevent it being too wordy. I'd say the two major issues are length and citations. At 69kb it is very long, sections may need to get their own subpages and be summarised - I don't think I'm qualified to judge which sections though. The citations also aren't particularly numerous. As much as I dislike judging an article on citations per word count (since it can and should vary depending on the article in question), there aren't a huge number. (Admittedly, it is one of those articles where almost every sentence could require a citation). Three examples (first 3 I found) where a cite is needed to support the claim: ~~*"Anyone who does not produce a valid ticket is given a 40-euro fine." FIXED~~ ~~*"Core and fast-growing sectors are communications...and medical engineering." FIXED~~ ~~*"Berlin is noted for its numerous cultural institutions, many of which enjoy international reputation. " (by whom) FIXED~~ Everything needed is there, just needs knocking into shape. Trebor 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I´m aware about of Wikipedia:Article length, which expresses concern about articles with greater than 32K-50K or 6000-10000 words of "readable prose". The overlength of country and city- articles though seems to be widely tolerated because of the exceptional status. Also compare the Berlin article to the five Featured Articles on cities:

Wikipedia Article	Total size	References
Seattle, Washington	85K	58
Detroit, Michigan	87K	101
San Francisco, California	87K	92
Boston, Massachusetts	68K	25
Hong Kong	70K	20
Berlin	73K	72

Thanks for the comment Lear 21 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I didn't check similar FA for length (my mistake). It was another of those things that I personally don't mind so much but I bring up because it's in the criteria. You may ignore the above. Trebor 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Close to FA, but lack of citations would lead to a lot of opposition if nominated in its current shape. Prose is great though. Specific comments:
- First documented in the 13th century Kind of stretching the use of "documented" in my opinion, although it may be hard to fix. Perhaps separating into two sentences: "Evidence of Berlin's existence first emerged in the 13th century. It became..." Although that's still a little awkward...
- It remained so during periods of the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich until 1945. Just want to make sure this sentence isn't missing "the" somewhere. Was it "during periods" or "during the periods" (a large difference)? FIXED

**In addition, Babelsberg Studios and the important production company UFA are located just outside Berlin in Potsdam. - Important according to whom? Adjective probably should be stricken... FIXED ~~**Last part of "Performing arts" could use some touch-up. Ending paragraph is only 1 sentence. Last part of those orchestras reads like a list. FIXED~~ **Picture of the mayor could use a better caption. Also, may want to identify him as the one on the right :). FIXED ~~**Captions in general need expansion. (MyFest in Kreuzberg?) FIXED~~

- If the citations issue is fixed, this could be FA status. But the citations issue is a big one, and I imagine it might take quite a bit of time. Anyway, hope this helped. Good luck! Gzkn 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "(r.)" in the caption of the mayor's picture is intended to indicate that he is the one on the right. —An gr 08:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...perhaps "(pictured right)" might be better to slow folks like me :) Gzkn 08:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the abbreviation to simply (right) and added context for the picture. —An gr 08:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment Gzkn ! That was very helpful. Some of the weak points are solved now. Thanks a lot Lear 21 12:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me a bit is that some parts of it read a bit like a brochure you'd find at a travel agency. Take the second and third paragraph of the lead section for example: it's just a listing of reasons one should visit or move one's business to the city. The poverty in the city (although, even in the economy section only the unemployment is mentioned) should, for example, be mentioned. Also: the most cited source in this article seems to be something similar to the brochure I mentioned. Although there's certainly nothing wrong with citing this source, using it to find information about Berlin is definately POV.

I also think the fact that Berlin and Germany wer divided after WWII should be explicitly mentioned in the lead section, since this is a very important event in the history of the city and readers, who don't know anything about German history, may wonder what East Berlin is supposed to be.(Done)--Carabinieri 10:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already adjusted the lead a bit, and you are right with the division of the city. It must be more explicit. Also the economic situaton, I wouldn´t call it poverty should be mentioned, probably in 'Demographics' or 'Economy'.

I disagree with the reference 'Berlin fact sheet' and to much POV.

The fact sheet is an official and credible source, even though it is published for the World Cup. It also cites facts and figures in majority.The lead text is positively exposing the city´s character, citing very credible and recently published sources; UNESCO, New Tork Times, IHT, Newsweek. It reflects the international image of the city, which has been developed in the last 10 years. Lear 21 11:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the fact sheet wasn't credible, I just think that if you use it you have to be aware of the fact that it's POV and you have to compensate that.

As to the lead text: I did not deny that the facts there are false or that they are not cited; I'm just saying that the point of this article should not be to tell how good Berlin is, but rather to give a balanced depiction of the city. And the article is not balanced right now IMHO. Another example for this is the quotes section. They are all complementing Berlin. I'm sure there are quotes by just as notable people making fun of/criticizing/etc Berlin.--Carabinieri 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes and it sounds more serious now. Lear 21 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]