Wikipedia:Peer review/Old City of Berne/archive1

Old Town of Berne

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 it's a stable and (I think) well written article. Since so few large European cities have such a compact and well preserved medieval core, Berne is unique. The article features numerous pictures and a good number of references, but could use a general clean up Thanks, Tobyc75 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have been to Berne and agree it is a lovely city and am glad to see work being done on this article, and the many nice images. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

The lead is too short and needs to be expanded to summarize the whole article, see WP:LEAD
A bit awkward: ...essentially unchanged since its construction lasting from the 12th to the 15th century., how about ...essentially unchanged since its construction during the 12th- to 15th-centuries.?
Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the name of the article in the headers - so "History of the Old Town" would just be "History" and "Founding of Berne" would just be "Founding"
Per Wikipedia:MOS#Images please do not sandwich text between two photos - the detail of the defensive works from the 1638 map does not add much (as it is already all there in the whole map image) and could be dropped
Images are also supposed to be set at "thumb" width per the MOS (allows viewer preferences to kick in). Vertical photos can use the "upright" parameter so they are not so wide.
Let's assume the goal is to get this to WP:GA - if so (and in any case) the article needs many more references. For example, the first paragraph after the lead is uncited, as are several others. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Internet references should include url, title, publisher, author if known and date accessed.
Semi-automated peer review has some useufl suggestions on spelling (be consistent on British or American) and other issues.
Avoid needless repetition - the Münster is described as the cathedral or minster every time (although once "Minster" is spelled "Minister")
I speak German so I think of it as the Berner Altstadt anyway, but since UESCO calls it "Old City of Berne", why name it "Old Town of Berne" here?
Much as I too love the fountains, I think ten photos of them is a bit excessive. I also doubt they all need their own section of the article, which would shorten the TOC. Why not just a section called Fountains, then make a subarticle on just the fountains if you want.
Also the bagpiper is in two photos but I do not see it mentioned in the article. Basel has a very similar bagpiper fountain - is one a copy of the other?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Ruhrfisch comments thanks for the note on my talk page, I will reply here as part of the peer review

I made a mistake - the bagpiper fountain is in a gallery with another picture of a fountain, which I assumed was also of it. It is Image:BernaBrunnenBern.JPG so it is a different fountain, but it should also have a caption and, if this "Berna" fountain is not already decribed in the article, it should be (don't have pictures in the article that are of subjects not discussed in the article).
I know there is a way to put two verticla images side by side (not a gallery). That might work here - have sets of two photos for the fountains and one caption.
It is pretty much your choice on the fountains - I would either reduce the number of headers and leave this information in the article as is (perhaps if the photos are in sets of two, the subheaders could also be in twos, i.e. "Justice and Moses" under a general "Fountains" header. I picked those two at random - don't have to pair them. Or it could just be Fountains and no subheaders. The alternative would be to use WP:Summary style and leave brief descriptions of each in the main article and then throw in everything know in a subarticle on just the FOuntains of Bern.
I am pretty sure Moses has the "rays" coming out of his head becasue of a mistranslation - it used to read he came down from Mount Sinai "with horns". If you look at Michaelangelo's "Moses" statue, it has tufts of hair for horns. The artists tried to follow what they thought it said in the Bible without making him look too demonic. See Moses (Michelangelo) - looks like these are more the rays of light. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]