Wikipedia:Peer review/Denmark/archive3

Denmark

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I - and other editors - realise that this article still needs some improvements and an 'outside' look at the article would be valuable. Note that this article recently merged with Kingdom of Denmark, so any suggestions on cutting back/rewording the lead would be valuable. I hope that some key areas for improvement can be identified and hopefully work can start on getting this article back to GA status!

Thanks, Peter (Talk page) 23:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this peer review page closed and archived? No review was made... AstroCog (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot archives any PR with no comments in the past 14 days. I have reopened it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a review in a bit then, since the bot is being impatient! CMD (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big article. Over 139kB total of which 73kB is prose. That's a lot. This article should be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, giving a thorough but brief overview of Denmark. Length may bring more information, but keep in mind it will also bring boredom. If we can make readers interested in Denmark, hopefully they'll learn more.

I'll be doing this review section by section, so I apologise in advance if I take longer than you'd wish (and sorry this is only happening after a submission weeks ago). If what I say is unclear, or you have an alternative suggestion you'd like to ask, or if I just say something totally wrong just tell me here. I'm giving an outside perspective, and what I say are suggestions.

Lead

The lead seems quite disorganised. I feel it doesn't give a clear overview, yet at the same time goes into too much detail in certain areas.

The lead theoretically shouldn't have information that isn't covered in the body (although the "(Danish: Kongeriget Danmark, pronounced [ˈkɔŋəʁiːəð ˈdanmɑɡ̊] ( listen) [note 1])" type stuff I've not once seen questioned, and I think should be fine). Because of this, there isn't really a need for references, as it should all be referenced in the body. Currently, the references in the lead are used only in the lead. This indicates to me that the information was placed directly into it and sourced there, which it shouldn't be. Make sure all information in the lead is in the body, and is sourced in the body.
I suggest Greenland/Faroe information is grouped together. Currently there's a bit in the first paragraph, and a bit in the last (including the defining of Denmark as a unitary state). Group it together in the first paragraph so that the rest of the lead can deal with Denmark proper, which seems to be the focus of the article.
The three notes in the lead are probably not needed. The state's pronunciation in regional languages isn't that important, as they don't apply to the whole state anyway. I've seen it argued that in fact no translations should be needed on the English wikipedia, but I think having the title in the state's official language is fine. Thus I'd remove that first note, and leave that to the interwiki links. The other two notes (and the prose they're attached to) go into a bit too much detail from the lead. I'd turn them into prose in either Administrative divisions or Politics.
"Denmark proper is the hegemonial part, where the residual judicial, executive and legislative power rests" --> "Denmark proper is the hegemonial area, where judicial, executive, and legislative power resides"
I'd cut down the information on what the exact definition of the Faroese and Greenlandic people are. Just keep it "The Faroe Islands are defined to be a community of people within the kingdom, and the Greenlandic people are defined as a separate people with the right to self-determination" or something similar. Again such detail is much more readily included in the body.
Reword "Denmark's shores extend to both the Baltic and North Seas" somehow. It may be useful to combine it with a note that it is located where the two seas meet alongside the dominium maris baltici information.
I'd remove the translations for the names of each island. It falls into the realm of trivia, and is more appropriately dealt with on the individual pages of those islands. In addition, as it stands the note "(commonly considered a part of Jutland)" is more confusing than explanatory. Either list the North Jutlandic Island as an island or don't.

I think what the lead most needs is expansion in scope. I'd suggest adding a very short summary of history, "consolidated in the 8th century, entered a series of unions and wars with other Scandinavian countries, gave home rule and independence to overseas territories in the 20th century" or something (I have complete faith you can make a better summary than that).
I'd also think slightly more about the people and their culture could be included, and perhaps economic information. We know the people are happy, uncorrupt, live in a welfare state, speak Danish, and are Scandinavian. Impressive for the short space given to that, but are those all the important points? The lead could go up to four paragraphs, as long as they're not too long!

CMD (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for picking this up and thanks for the suggestions. I don't mind going through the article section by section and I agree it's easier. Following your suggestions, I've made edits to the lead; grouping together information and adding other rankings. I've also followed the example of other country articles by removing references for the various rankings, i.e. '16th on the Human Development Index', as these can be found in the respective articles. I know there's still a little bit more work to be done on the lead though, so any other pointers are welcome. -- Peter (Talk page) 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is looking much better. It is probably not worth going over it again until the rest of the article is good. The lead reflects the article, not the other way around. As for the rankings, while it's fine to have them in the lead without sources, they should be in the body with sources. Mention per capita income in the economy section, the Corruption Perception Index in demographics (or perhaps Politics?), mention happiness in demographics (or is this the same as life satisfacation?), etc. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

What does the unification of Denmark have to do with Etymology? Were the Danes divided before this? Were they all considered Danes at that point in history?
Reference [10] (after "Most handbooks derive") is placed weirdly. What exactly is it sourcing?
References [12] and [15] don't seem to be references, but notes. If they're notable and sourceable, include them in the prose.
Linking to birth certificate in the picture caption seems like the kind of linking WP:OVERLINK deplores
There's little I want to say about this section as it stands, because much of it seems terribly unreferenced. Source it, and perhaps rearrange (who knows, there may be enough material out there to make a standalone article). It seems haphazard, going from the 12th century Chronicon Lethrense to the 10th century jelling stones (although I gather that's because the Chronicon describes history?)

History

This is a long section, which probably could be greatly condensed (I like to look at these sections as analogous to - slightly larger - leads of their main articles). At the same time, much of it seems unsourced. The quick and dirty fix is to simply remove all the unsourced information, or move it to History of Denmark if you're feeling particularly productive! You can then edit from there. The long fix is figuring out what information is the most important to give a concise yet thorough history of Denmark, and using that information and sourcing. Have fun either way!

Prehistory could use some dates, estimates I suppose, for when the Danes arrived to Jutland.
Was the territory of the Danes just Jutland and the surrounding islands, or were they spread over a bit more of Scandinavia?

In Viking Age it's mentioned they were the first to reach Iceland, getting there from the Faroes. When did they get to the Faroes? Were the Faroes under some Danish king at that point (or whatever kingdoms are in what are now Denmark)?
It's mentioned Greenland and Vinland were settled. It's probably worth mentioning how the settlements were eventually isolated and died out. (I was coincidentally reading a book about this just earlier today. Are there good articles on the settlements that can be wikilinked to?)
"and Frankish sources (e.g. Notker of St Gall) provide the earliest historical evidence of the Danes." By "historical evidence" do you mean written record/recorded history?
Much of the second and third paragraph seem to be the kind of unnecessary detail that, while fascinating to weird people like me, is a bit too detailed for this summary article.
"The Danes were united..." What were they before? Warring kingdoms? Tribes? Earlier you discuss a "southern border of the Danes", which wouldn't make sense if they weren't united.
Is Cnut the Great the same person as Canute the Great? How were Denmark and England divided? Who is Sweyn Estridsen? What is the relevance of Duke Robert of Flanders? Again, this is probably a good example of far too much detail, which would need even more to be explained properly.
When did the massive flotillas of Scandinavians start meeting? I'm a bit lost here, as I still don't know how the Viking system was arranged at this time. Was the Norweigian kingdom a separate united Kingdom?

So unfortunately I don't know enough about Danish history to figure out what's missing here, and how the bits connect. I can only say I don't fully grasp the events here, although perhaps I'm just somehow dumb, which I apologise for. Any thoughts on this? Will continue review later. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no citations in the whole Medieval Denmark section. It seems to contain some very interesting points though. Was this the period of dominium maris baltici?

Who was the Battle of Falköping fought agains?
Why was Margarets nephew crowned instead of her (I'm assuming she was ruling at the time?)
How did Sweden get a king if it was part of the union?

Protestant reformation is another section which lacks citations.
(1534–1536) is given for the wars extant, yet it says that "The massacre of Skipper Clement's peasant army at Aalborg in December 1534 brought an end to the war". Did the war end in 1534 or 1536?

Is it really fair to say attention had been given to the south if much of the previous information had been about wars in Estonia or with Sweden?
Who are "the Hansa"?
Lots of citation needed in modern history too.
Who was the Battle of Lutter lost to?
I was under the impression Bornholm revolted against Sweden rather than was given back.

20th and 21st history section again without a great deal of sourcing. Other than that it seems to cover the important points.
The two WWII pictures in this section don't add too much to the text, I'd suggest just keeping the EU one.

Overall, I'd say the section needs to be greatly reduced. It is supposed to be a summary of history, so perhaps consider it a large lead for the history article (albeit with sources). Different country articles have different lengths, some with no subsections at all. CMD (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes,I agree that it can be cut-down a lot. In fact, some parts of that sections are slightly more detailed than the History of Denmark article, so I'm going to try moving some of the information there. But as you pointed out, there are lots of errors which have been missed. History will still need subsections, but they can be much smaller and not correspond directly with 'History of Denmark'. I'll start on this today. --Peter (Talk page) 15:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was impressive. The thing I question most now about structure is why a separate 20th and 21st centuries section exists. A title like that implies recentism heavily (and doesn't include the First World War?). I suggest renaming that and "Modern history" with names that show the importance of the split rather than seeming completely arbitrary: eg. "Modern history"-->"Denmark-Norway", "20th and 21st centuries"-->"Constitutional monarchy". CMD (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Images: They should help the text. The image of Copenhagen tells me nothing about Geography. On the other hand, it's the first time I've appreciated a CIA map, as it shows the islands clearly (and bridges). The satellite photo seems to have little to do with Climate, but more with environment. I'm not sure what information the beach photo is trying to give me.
Furthering that, captions should help. "Map of Denmark" is pointless; I see it's a map. Perhaps note the bridges in black, or note it's Denmark proper.

First two paragraphs are unsourced. Things like coordinates definitely need sources.
Third paragraph has two sources, and mentions bridges. A bridge has already been mentioned in the first paragraph, have information about bridges in just one area.
Danish translations: I suggest not including them. They interrupt the flow of prose, are inconsistent, and verge on Trivia. Leave non-English names to articles on the subjects.
"Ferries or small aircraft connect to the smaller islands" tells me that Denmark has boats and planes, neither of which surprises me in the slightest. If it's non-notable information, remove it.
What is the criteria for "Main cities"? (Cities may be better covered in Demographics)
"Other hills in the same area" are notable why?
"The area of inland water is: (eastern Denmark) 210 km2 (81 sq mi); (western D.) 490 km2 (189 sq mi)." Where is the split between Eastern and Western Denmark?
"The size of the land area of Denmark cannot be stated exactly since the ocean constantly erodes and adds material to the coastline, and because of human land reclamation projects (to counter erosion)." This is true for any piece of land anywhere. Remove.
"On the southwest coast of Jutland, the tide is between 1 and 2 m (3.28 and 6.56 ft), and the tideline moves outward and inward on a 10 km (6.2 mi) stretch." This needs to be rewritten. I can guess what it's trying to say, but it's not obvious. Also, why mention the tide in that specific area? Does it have the largest intertidal zone?
"Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands)" Best to focus on proper Denmark, like the rest of the article. Last paragraph again needs sourcing.
Needs quite a decent copyedit after sourcing is done.

"The climate is in the temperate zone." The climate is temperate, Denmark is in the (a?) temperate zone. The climate is not in a zone.
"The winters are not particularly cold" is just opinion that doesn't give any information. Remove, leave just the temperature figures.
Why is Christmas celebrated on Christmas Eve, and what does this (and the other holidays) have to do with Climate?

Big claims in the Environment section's first paragraph require equally impressive sources. Also, avoid such short paragraphs, they appear cluttered and MOS advises against them.
"These agreements have helped in the reduction in CO2 emissions by Denmark." No they haven't; they've set goals. The Danish government's laws and the actions of the Danish people reduce CO2. Information on those laws (and possibly public actions, if notable) would be useful.
"Much of the city's success can be attributed to a strong municipal policy combined with a sound national policy;" can it? Says who? Policies that do what exactly?
I just noticed "The award was given for long-term holistic environmental planning" is a copyvio. That's not good at all. Fixed it myself, but the article must not have anything like this, or any decent reviewer will quickly fail the article.
"It is comparable to countries such as Germany," which are what? The comparison against other Scandinavian countries was good, as that's a distinct block of countries, but what are countries like Germany? Perhaps give Denmark's ranking within the EU.
Sources. Needed. Lots of them. CMD (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Well it's clear that the geography section needs a lot of work, more than I first thought. I can see now that it's a bit piecemeal up to now, with lots of people adding various facts they consider relevant without checking over first. I'm going to add a few references first and remove some of the information that obviously shouldn't be there (I've no idea why Christmas Eve/Christmas is mentioned in the climate section, I can only think that an editor saw a mention of Midwinter - which is vaguely related to the winter climate - and added it in. I'm removing that!) -- Peter (Talk page) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Western and Eastern Denmark are common terms used to split Denmark - 'Western Denmark' is Jutland, and 'Eastern Denmark' was formerly defined as Sealand and Scania (now just Bornholm). But this division shouldn't really be used in this article for the "largest body of water" (there can only be one largest body of water in Denmark!), so I'm just going with the largest.
Arguably the agreements have helped to reduce CO2 emissions, because the Danish parliament has passed legislation only really because of the goals. But this could definitely be worded better.
Good thing the copyvio was noted, something similar was found on another article and nearly resulted in half of it being deleted. I'll check for more.
Adding sources now. --Peter ^{Talk page} 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions

This doesn't seem to me to fit well under Geography, but that doesn't matter.

I don't think the Counties of Denmark further is needed as a hatnote, and it's included in the prose already.
Don't start off with "Administratively", it's redundant.
This article says there were formerly 13 counties, Counties of Denmark says there were formerly 15. Which is it?
"The regions were created on 1 January 2007 as part of the 2007 Danish Municipal Reform to replace the country's traditional thirteen counties (amter)." --> "The regions were created on 1 January 2007 to replace the traditional thirteen counties."
Linking archipelago is classic WP:OVERLINK
Again, there's a dearth of sources.
Have the English name first on the table
I'd remove the entire country stats. They're redundant to the infobox, the prose, and the table in the Greenland section below.

Although the article isn't the shortest, to say the least, I think the status of Greenland and the Faroes should be fleshed out more than it currently is. The historical dates at which they achieved their level of autonomy, for example, would be useful information.
Place the comparison table to the right or left of the prose, rather than below it. It's a compact table, doesn't need its own lines. CMD (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

That map doesn't fit here, but would be useful in the Greenland and Faroe islands section above. I suggest moving it into the Greenland and Faroe islands section, and forget what I said about moving the table to the right, as that picture would fill up some space nicely. The other two images are quite good.
Sources again, I'd be especially interested to have one for the constitution noting the monarch as sacrosanct. A fascinating anachronism.
Don't italicise words without good reason, like "formally". The prose makes the meaning more than clear already.
You mention the Danish parliament in the thirds paragraph, then reintroduce it as the Folketinget in the next one. It is then introduced again in the paragraph after that. Introduce it as the Folketinget once and note that it is the Danish parliament at that point, then stick with either Folketinget or Danish parliament consistently throughout the rest of the article.
"In theory the doctrine prevails." What does this mean?
"Greenland and Faroe Islands" --> "Greenland and the Faroe Islands", I believe the "the" is usually used in English
Remove the information about the previous administration, there's no real point to have it.
The constitutional information shouldn't be at the bottom of this section, and does overlap with the administrative divisions section above. My suggestion would be to bring administrative divisions to a subset of politics, but it's up to the editors of the article.

The foreign relations and military sections need some sources pronto, especially for claims like the first sentence.
I'd expect to find a short paragraph about the EU here.
I would actually combine the two sections, as it makes discussing things like NATO, ISAF, peacekeeping activities etc. much smoother and simpler, reducing duplication.

Good suggestion about merging the Foreign Relations and Military sections - will do. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also, the counties article is incorrect. There were 13 traditional counties, but also the municipalities of Copenhagen and Frederiksborg were first-level divisions, but they weren't counties as much. I'll briefly include this in the section. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 19:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

An economy doesn't have living standards. Living standards information should be in the demographics section.
"Support for free trade is high" --> "Public support for free trade is high"
"Also of importance is the sea territory of more than 105,000 km² (40,000+ sq mi)." Why is this of importance?

I note here economics isn't my strong point. It seems like you've covered all the basic economic indicators, but that's just me. I didn't mention sourcing, but Economy really should be fully sourced, considering all the statistics.

Is there an estimate for the total oil reserves in Danish waters?
Rather than just a ranking in countries, a figure for oil exports would be useful.
"Denmark is connected by transmission lines to other European countries." What does this mean, and how is this notable?

Transport section is interesting, especially in regards to car ownership. I'd expect more about Biking though, since Denmark makes the news a surprising amount due to its Bicycles. More information, like whether the Biking infrastructure lies just in the cities or extends to the whole country, would be useful. The note on fluctuating energy sources seems unrelated, and should go in the Energy section. Sources would be good, as usual, especially if you have lists. Following an outside list is much better than making your own.

Public policy is comprehensive, but I don't understand why it's a separate section. It seems to cover much of what was covered in the main economy chunk, and at the same time appears to contain quit ea bit of undue information, better suited for the main Economy article. Also, adding information about what the Nordic Model is in the prose would probably be a good thing for the article.

Demographics

"Many of the remaining 10.6% were immigrants—or descendants of recent immigrants—from Bosnia and Herzegovina, neighboring countries, South Asia, and Western Asia." Doe "Neighboring countries" mean neighbours of Denmark or of Bosnia and Herzegovina? If it's Denmark, place that first in the list to avoid confusion.
"Inuit from Greenland and Faroese" --> "Inuit and Faroese" or "Inuit from Greenland and Faroese from the Faroe Islands" or something similar
"As in most countries" is a general pointless statement, remove it
"The average density in the west" --> "The average density in Jutland" seems better to me
Info about Danish communities overseas is probably WP:UNDUE. That's information for Danes, not Denmark
Religion seems good, but needs sources.
Education seems to be more of a collection of lists than encyclopaedic prose. I suggest not listing individual schools and universities unless there is a huge emphasis placed on them by outside sources. Also consider whether Education is so important in the whole scope of Denmark's demographics that it deserves so much prose.

Culture

Remove the See Also to List of Danes. Not all notable danes are notable for cultural reasons, and it's Undue at any rate.
The entire section is very long, but at the same time subdivided into a large number of tiny subsections. It needs restructuring of some kind, to shorten it and eliminate/reduce subheadings.
The section dives straight into examples, which is jarring (and also redundant to the current subsections). A general discussion of Danish culture doesn't appear until the fourth paragraph, and even then it's short. I suggest creating a more generalised picture of Danish culture and placing it at the start of the section. The examples can flow from there.

There's a lot here, and since it should probably be reworked I won't comment specifically on what's there, but in general:

Write generally, giving an overall description of some part of Culture, rather than simply describing specific instances of it.
Avoid random lists. If you must have a list, base it on an external source, and include an explanation on why that list is the way that is eg. Don't say "Some notable X include", but rather, "X who have done Y include".
Avoid plain "X is the best Y" or "X does the best Y" statements, like "The Danish Museum of Art & Design in Copenhagen exhibits the best in Danish design." It's quite meaningless and doesn't aid the reader at all.

There's a lot of work that needs doing in this article, especially around sourcing. Good luck, and feel free to ping me if there are any questions. Cheers, CMD (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]