Wikipedia:Peer review/Berlin/archive2

Berlin
This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been 6 years since the last peer review. It has had Good Article status before and am looking to get it back up to Good Article status or possibly even Featured Article status.

Thanks, Kingjeff (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Waveclaira (talk)
 * 1) Is the prose written in an engaging, brilliant and professional mannor? Is British English used throughout the article?
 * 2) How comprehensive is the article? Is there anything missing from the article?
 * 3) Is the article neutral and stable?
 * 4) Is the lead up to Featured Article standard?
 * 5) Is there an appropriate structure to the article?
 * 6) Are the citations consistent, reliable and use the appropriate template?
 * 7) Are the photos appropriate and have the appropriate copyright status? Are the captions concise?
 * 8) Is the article have the appropriate length? Does the article address the main aspects of the topic? Is there unnecessary details? Is the summary style used?
 * 9) Is there any other information that would be helpful in getting this up to Featured Article status?
 * too long, make concise
 * whole article has >13000 words. try your best to make it 5000.
 * too much history, not enough on what is happening in current day Berlin.
 * anything on the sidebox should not be duplicated on the main article.
 * "Berlin has Germany's largest number of daily newspapers" has no citation. all facts need to have sources.


 * I read the lead and Arts/Culture section. This needs some work to become a GA-class article. From what I read, the lead was pretty good but the Arts/Culture section relied a lot on opinion, obscure claims and peacock terms, like "one of the most diverse and vibrant of its kind", "has a huge number of", "is well known for", "established a high-profile reputation as", etc. Better to let the facts do the talking. See Minneapolis which does a good job at that, or Providence, Rhode Island which makes claims but then immediately backs those claims up.
 * In the lead "First documented in the 13th century, Berlin was the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia (1701–1918), the German Empire (1871–1918), the Weimar Republic (1919–1933) and the Third Reich (1933–1945)." - it is unclear what the date ranges are for: when Berlin was a capital (which is the subject of the sentence) or when those political entities existed.
 * There is a section titled "The arts and culture". Manual of Style recommends against the "The".
 * In "Arts and Culture" intro paragraphs, combine it into one paragraph and move the part about MTV and music convention to the Music sub-section. Don't just call it "Zeitgeist Metropolis", but say it has been called ZM because...
 * In Media, "With over 430,000 admissions..." - it is unclear if that is in a single year or what year.
 * The first paragraph of Nightlife and festivals seems to be largely cited to one ref, a metrotimes.com editorial. There should probably be better references to back up some of those claims and relevancy (like Panorama Bar).
 * What is SO36 and SOUND? Clubs or festivals?
 * "Berlin is also well known for the cultural festival" - needs to be cited. If it actually is "well known" then it should be easy to cite.
 * In Galleries and museums "district dedicated to art and antiquities" - all quotes need to be cited. And the second paragraph of this section has no cites; you have to show where this info is coming from.
 * "a standing exhibition on two millennia of German-Jewish history"
 * In Performing arts, "The city's main venue for musical theatre performances is the Theater des Westens (built 1895)." - what is that supposed to mean? it's the biggest venue?
 * Otherwise, the "Architecture" section may need some text (See Tulsa, Oklahoma, the length seems fine, the History section should include some info on what has happened since re-unification, I wouldn't mind seeing more info on Infrastructure (like where drinking water comes from, where garbage goes, etc.).