Wikipedia:Peer review/Switzerland/archive1

Switzerland[edit]

The article seems relatively decent as it stands. Two heads are better than one, however, and opening a peer review seems to make sense in roder to improve it. The only two sections that seem especially weak are the direct democracy and energy politics ones. Of course, any input or suggestions are welcome! Ourai ^т _с 04:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could do with more references for a popular country. Wiki-newbie 10:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is massively undercited: once it is fully referenced, it could be submitted to a new peer review. Sandy (Talk) 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice, but I have a few comments:

The sentence about the naming of males and females in Switzerland, while interesting, probably should be down in the body of the text. (Perhaps in the culture section?)

* The historical illustration of Zug needs to clarify what we are seeing. It looks like a walled town, but I thought Zuq was a canton?

Some of the history needs clarification. The statement regarding "The success of Zwingli's Reformation in some cantons" in the "Early history" section requires the reader to follow the link in order to understand the context. Likewise the following sentence, "The conflict between Catholic and Protestant cantons persisted," describes an internecine struggle that should have been made clear beforehand.
Down in the Cantons section it uses terms such as Swiss-Italians. Are these Italian-speaking Swiss; Swiss ex-patriates, or Italian immigrants? Likewise for Swiss-French. The use of these terms should be clearer.
In the same section, would it be interesting to organize the list of cantons by their primary languages?
"...foreign invading army and had destroyed..."
satellite state should be linked.
"to which the Radicals objected".
The EFTA link should be expanded so that the reader does not need to follow the link. Likewise the Schengen treaty needs to be explained.
The first paragraph of the "Politics" could be made more clear by briefly clarifying the role of the Federal Council.
In the third paragraph of "Direct democracy", please use the em dash (HTML: —) rather than the hyphen.
"If both are accepted, one has to additionally signal a preference." Who is "one"? A voter?
Is the "Energy politics" really appropriate for this level of detail on a nation? This is perhaps too recent to determine the true importance. Perhaps the energy production could be covered down in the Economy section?
"From these the headwaters of several major European rivers..." is awkward. Perhaps "These form the headwaters of several major European rivers..."?
The "zoomable map" sentence needs to be replaced somehow. It seems inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. The {{coor d}} template, for example, provides a separate page of maps.
In the economy section, the text first uses abbreviations (GDP & PPP) and later the expanded forms. The order of this should be reversed and the redundant links removed.

~~I only made it half-way down the page. I'll try to add some more later. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

The "Economy" section needs to discuss factors such as key industries, and import/export goods so the reader can get a feel for how the economy functions. It definitely needs to discuss swiss banking.
The sentence, "For much of the 20th century, Switzerland was the wealthiest country in Europe by a considerable margin," needs a citation. But then so many other sections of the text, as noted by Sandy.
"(also behind..." is missing a closing parenthesis.
Calvinist needs to be linked to Calvinism.
The culture section doesn't actually discuss the Swiss culture to any great degree.

Okay I'm done. Thank you and good luck. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]