Wikipedia:Peer review/Estonia/archive1

Estonia
I would like to see this make at least the good article rating within the next few weeks. In the somewhat distant future, I'm hoping it can be a featured article. All comments are more than welcome. The members of my WikiProject and myself will try our best to improve the article based on the suggestions we receive here. Thank you in advance!!!  Srose  (talk)  21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting as far as it goes. The structure is good and it mostly flows well. It seems like some sections have just been given up on because there are "main" articles covering these sections. I think this article should still provide summaries of those topic areas (as has been done with the history section) to give it some balance and round it out (Culture, Tourism, Transport, Crime, Foreign Relations would all benefit from expansion). It is dramatically under-referenced: 2 minor references in what should be a major article is not good. There is poor linking - some terms are repeatedly linked (Russia,Finland,EU) and some are not linked on their first use but are linked later. Images are mostly good but there is some strange placement (such as view of the coast in the economy section). Some more specific comments:
 * Lead is somewhat short.
 * "According to radiocarbon dating..." - of what?
 * "most significant was the transition to farming..." - from what?
 * This sentence is awkward: "During the Iron Age, approximately the 1st–5th century AD, resident farming was widely established, the population grew and settlement expanded."
 * "...sacked and burned the Scandinavian capital of Sigtuna in 1187." - "Scandinavian capital" is not a good choice, maybe "town of Sigtuna in medieval Sweden". Also I'm not sure we know for certain that there raid on Sigtuna was by Estonian pirates.
 * "...and developments took the direction of establishing a state" - not quite sure what this means, ugly phrasing at best.
 * No explanation of the use of Reval after Tallinn - maybe you should use something like "Reval (modern Tallinn)".
 * "In 1343 the people of northern Estonia and Saaremaa rebelled against the rule of the Germans..." - as far as has been explained in the article, at this point northern Estonia is under the control of the Danes, why would they rebel against the Germans?
 * "In 1625, mainland Estonia came entirely under Swedish rule." - why?
 * The Great Northern War could do with some dates.
 * "...and the availability of education to the natives" - explain why this was available.
 * Politics - this section doesn't flow well, it is quite abrupt in the later part. Who are the lawmakers? Was internet voting a success? When was it used?
 * Climate - this is very poor, if you aren't going to provide any information then don't include the section.
 * The section on the 2002 poll results doesn't fit in well with the rest of the religion section - it has a different style and is overly comprehensive when compared to the rest of the article
 * "..and continued its EU accession talks". This doesn't sit well at the end of this sentence, perhaps move it to the beginning.
 * The international rankings, culture, and miscellaneous topics sections look as if you lost interest - they are just a list of links with no explanation.
 * Hope this helps, Yomangani talk 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you; it is a tremendous help. I admittedly have worked exclusively on the history, introduction, and infobox (other than to repair red links and vandalism, of course).  I'll let the others know and get to work myself! :)  Srose   (talk)  13:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for an article that taught me a lot about Estonia. Here are a few points that can help the article rise to featured status (and Good Article status en route). Some echo what Yomangani said, and others are on different subjects.


 * Lead: This section could say more. Lead section suggests two or three paragraphs for an article of this length (18 K characters, copied from the screen, not the edit window). It also suggests, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. " You could place the country in the context of the Baltic states, and summarize each of the major sections with a sentence or so.


 * Geography: Under Climate, A summary of temperatures by season, precipitation, and any special features of Estonia's climate would be interesting. Are there zones, such as coastal, inland?


 * Economy: "Estonia joined the WTO... as the second Baltic state to join... ." Can you rephrase this without repeating "join"? Material you could add: Who are the trading partners, and what does Estonia import and export? A word on industrial, service, and agriculture sectors would be enlightening too.


 * "The Estonian government is intending to adopt the Euro as the country's currency on ... due to continued high inflation ... " Does this sentence mean that the purpose of adopting the Euro is to end high inflation, or another meaning? The sentence continues, "and finalised the design ... ." The mix in tenses suggests splitting this sentence. Personally, I'd also change "is intending" to "intends" or "plans" or something like that.


 * Demographics: Where do the people live: urban, suburban or rural settlements?


 * Religion: The 2002 poll on religion is interesting, but occupies a place out of proportion with the remainder of the section. The question of how many people believe in religion was previously discussed, and is visited again in the "Eurobarometer" poll. Three times is too many. In my view, once is enough. Consider starting a main article on religion in Estonia, and providing additional detail there instead of in the top-level article on the country.


 * International rankings: This is brief, which is a virtue. If you wish to expand it, you can track the ratings over the years, or at key points in Estonian history. Of course, not all ratings are available at key points, so this only works for ones that are available.


 * Culture: There's no prose in this section. I'd suggest adding a paragraph on things that are traditional and unique to Estonia, and on one or two significant modern contributions. This section lists a couple of universities; a comment on the university system would interest many readers: are they publically or privately funded? Do leaders of government or industry or scholars go to any particular one? What preparation do students receive prior to entering them?


 * Language: There's information about the Estonian language, but it's quite sketchy (a single sentence in Demographics). I would welcome a paragraph or two on the Estonian language here in the article on the country.


 * Overall: Evaluate the links. Notice, for example, that in Economy, the first paragraph has a link to Baltic States but not to Scandinavia. The fourth paragraph has two links to Euro.

I hope this helps you improve the article. It would be a pleasure one day soon to find this on the main page. Fg2 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoo, this is going to be quite a project. I guess I should have looked over the article more carefully, but I got a suggestion in an email from a project member to put this up for peer review and scanned it minimally.  I'll hop right to those excellent suggestions!  Srose   (talk)  01:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)