Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Berlin/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 00:18, 7 July 2007.
Berlin edit
You are very welcome to comment on this article. The article seems already mature enough to promote it towards FA-status. And please, can somebody fix the defect entry... all the bestLear 21 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (Subpage created. Resurgent insurgent 13:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Object. Half of the lead is empty of wiki-links, which looks weird. The History section contains very few footnotes. Same goes for the Geography section. Also, why is Architecture under Geography? Doesn't seem right to me. It's mainly the first couple of sections that let this article down. — Wackymacs 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - lead looks ok, apart from modern zeitgeist (what does this mean?), checking prose....
- The central part of Berlin can be traced back to two towns: Cölln (on the Fisher Island) is first mentioned in a 1237 document, and Berlin (across the Spree in what is now called the Nikolaiviertel) in one from 1244. - the latter part of this sentence does not sound encyclopedic, better to name and reference the documents with an inline ref.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- History section is underreferenced.
- Architecture section is very listy. Paragraphs need to be combined and would be good to have some sort of overview. , and regains being it today. is a sentence which needs rewriting.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are some problems with the organization of the sections. It looks very bad to have a section "divided" into only one subsection (i.e. within a section X to have a subsection X.1 without also having an X.2). This is the case for the sections "Geography" (with one subsection "Climate"), "Cityscape" (with one subsection "Architecture"), and "Economy" (with one subsection "Media"). Also, it looks very odd for "History" to be divided up into "17th-19th century" and "20th century", with everything before the 17th century pushed into the lead of the section, and without an 21st century. Indeed, this entire section is probably somewhat too long; it should just be a summary of History of Berlin and as such not need to be divided into subsections at all.
- A second issue is the images, not all of which have crystal-clear status as being freely licensed. I've left you a note on your talk page asking about Image:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG and Image:PeopleBerlin.jpg; for Image:Berlin Mitte by night.JPG, where is the evidence that the author has agreed to license it under CC-BY-SA? For , where is the evidence that the author has agreed to license it under GFDL? Three images were associated with these terms of use, which specify non-commercial use only and no derivatives. I speedy-deleted two of them; the third has been listed at WP:PUI. I cannot support this FAC until the copyright status of all images is clear. —Angr 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no unusual organization. Compare other global city articles. All image have been confirmed via e-mail. Concerning the Image:Glücklich.jpg : it was a flickr image which is not available anymore. I´m not supporting the candidacy any longer myself. The candicacy is withdrawn immediately. Lear 21 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object: The article does not comply with the the various WP guidelines. I left the (automatic) peerreviewer output on the article's talkpage as opportunities for improvement. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.