Wikipedia:Peer review/Dresden/archive1

Dresden[edit]

I would like to promote this article to good articles and later to featured articles. So you are welcome to review the language and content of the article. Geo-Loge 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What stands out right away is the fact that this article only has 4 footnotes. Can more be added? - Tutmosis 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on references. Some facts like GDP etcetera are referenced since today. Which kinds of statements have to be footnoted? Geo-Loge 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually numbers that could be challenged, opinioned statements such as "The subjects of local affairs in Dresden are often about the urban development of the city", and statements that read like a fact but could be challenged such as "19th century to the 1920s when it was a centre of fine and visual arts". Also I agree with the user below, this article could benefit from better use of summary form. The prose also could definetely be improved. - Tutmosis 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some statements are in use to introduce to a topic. Their references are the following passages. Geo-Loge 23:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing information to create a sentence constitutes as original research. Footnotes are used to specify what verifiable source you used, so anyone who doubts it can check it out. - Tutmosis 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases doubt can be cleared by the following statements (that are footnoted or link to information of the Wikipedia free of doubt). First footnote an introduction than footnote the statements the introduction is introducting to is window-dressing. Finally an introducing statement is footnoted a couple of times and knowledge can be found in the footnote section. Geo-Loge 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

My original thought (note, this is only useful if you realize that this is what any visitors will think): Woah. This is really long.

Correction time:

No matter if "Sorbian" is linked, you must link "Old Sorbian" to its respective seperate article.
"...is the capital city of the German Federal Free State of Saxony and situated in a valley on the River Elbe." That's only the predicate, and it stretches on before that. Break it into this: "...is the capital city of the German Federal Free State of Saxony. It is situated in a valley on the Elbe river." Note the switching around of the "river" and "Elbe." This is because the rest of the article is in American English, and I'm going to make sure you keep it constant.

For the record, I have nothing against my friends across the pond. :)

"Since German re-unification Dresden has been an important..." The "since" part is a clause. You need a comma. Secondly, the "important" part pushes it close to WP:PEACOCK. So it should be like this: "Since German re-unification, Dresden has been a cultural, political, and economic center in the eastern part of the Federal Republic of Germany."
Maybe a light condensing of the Geography section is good. No seperate article is needed.
Condense the history section immediately. I suggest making a seperate History of Dresden article.
This article has gotten way too detailed. Just like the other 99 percent of non-Wikipedians who will be reading this article: I quit. Please condense this, drop a line, and then I'll do a more detailed review.

Sorry, it's just that my skills are in better use copyediting. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Sorbian has no article. Sorbian however is an active spoken language.
The vocabulary of the article is British English, I thought?
I dont see "gibberish" in the Geography section; Condensing means drop some information.
History is indeed not very good. It is the oldest part of the article and not completely renewed yet.

Geo-Loge 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]