Wikipedia:Peer review/Wiesbaden/archive1

Wiesbaden

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this article an GA.

Thanks, Zeeuwsebad (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Wiesbaden looks a nice place, but the article needs a lot of attention if it is to make GA. Main points:-

• The banner relating to absorption of content from German Wikipedia should be dealt with or removed
• The lead needs to be expanded into a proper summary of the whole article, touching albeit briefly on all the significant aspects of the main text.
• The article has far too few citations. Some citation tags have been added, but there could be dozens more. Many sections are without any citations at all.
• The prose lacks flow. This is mainly due to the large number of very short paragraphs, combined with what looks like an excessive number of sections and subsections. Consider combining short paragraphs to form longer ones, and also whether this many subsections is necessary.
• Bullet points should be avoided in the general prose. They're OK for obvious lists such as "Notable residents" but not, for example, in the World War II section.
• The images are interesting, but there may be too many of them. The small gallery below the St Elizabth's Church section looks unnecessary. Images overdominate and crowd the text in some places, for example in the Geographical Setting and Modern era sections where the text is squeezed by the left-right alignments. It may be possible to reposition some of the images into less crowded parts of the article.
• Minor point, but "Geographical Setting" should be "Geographical setting" per MOS
• What was the basis of the selection of "notable" residents? Some are clearly notable in the true sense of the word, but Melody Perkins? Rudolf von Ribbentrop? (and why, alone, does Ribbentrop have a year of birth?)
• "Famous visitors": the visits of Wagner, Brahms and Dostoyevsky have been mentioned earlier in the article in the context of the spa, and don't need to be repeated here. The professional concert engagements of musicians hardly qualify as "visits". I see little merit in this section and advise you to delete it.
• Likewise, the very brief "rivalry" and "fictional" sections smack of trivia and should in my view be ditched.
• All German-language sources should be marked as such. All online sources that are not from print media should have retrieval dates.

I have not carried out a prose check – although I would avoid using the word "plus" as a synonym for "and". All in all, there is plenty of work still to be done on this promising article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)