Wikipedia:Peer review/Berlin Wall/archive1

Berlin Wall

Was a featured article candidate over a year ago and I think most of the issues have been appropriately addressed. Here's the link. I think it's ready to be a candidate again and wanted it to go through the ringer first. Vicarious 19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the lead (which I think should be two paragraphs) seems to be altogether as one, big paragraph. Perhaps splitting it to two.

There must be inline citations.
Too little outgoing links—just three?
There must be a fair-use rationale on Image:Conrad Schumann.jpg. Also, please state why it is fair use.
There must be a fair-use rationale on Image:Stamp-ctc-fall-of-the-berlin-wall.jpg.

That's all I can think of. Good luck! ^KILO-_LIMA 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean "Too little outgoing links—just three?"? Do you mean only three inline citations? Vicarious 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conrad image was uploaded by a user that has since left wikipedia and my brief probes for the source of the images have been in vain so I simply removed the image. The stamp image is very explicit on what constitutes fair use and it's use in the berlin wall article is not, so I removed it as well.
I thought the article was a bit skimpy on inline citations as well but no one mentioned this when it was a candidate for featured aticle before so I thought of it as a non-issue. I do think that a lot of the sources are from books rather then online but I'll see what I can do. Vicarious 04:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Kilo said. More interlinks are needed - the lead, for example, does not link to important terms like Communist bloc or Soviet Union. I 'The fall of the Wall' is not comprehensive - for example, it does not even mention Polish Solidarity. I'd suggest expanding the article - doubling the size would probably make it comprehensive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wikified the things you mentioned and much more. I also redid the opening, I didn't find it very well written before.

The things that have been said before me are very important, and should be addressed. However, I noticed a few more things:

The "of the wall" in section titles are all unnessicary - this article is about the wall, and so we already know that.

"...to most vehicles and a barbed-wire fence was erected, which was later built up into the full-scale Wall." When was it built up to the full-scale wall?

"Accordingly, the administration made polite protests, at length, via "the usual channels", but without fervour, even though it was a violation of the postwar Four Powers Agreements, which gave the United Kingdom, France and the United States a say over the administration of the whole of Berlin." - Run-on sentence. What is meant by '"the usual channels"'? What were the "postwar Four Powers Agreements"? Should a new article be made on this?

"And if West Berlin fell, after all the efforts of the Berlin Airlift, how could any of America's allies rely on her?" Two things: One, the rhetorical question has no place in an encyclopedia article. Second, most people will not be familiar with the Berlin Airlift, so it should be explained in the article.

"... with ambassadorial rank (as Kennedy's special advisor)." Hmm... I'm not understanding what is meant by this.

"The battle groups were pentatomic, with 1362 officers and men each." What is pentatomic? Dictionary.com talks about replacable atoms...

Paragraphs 3-8 in Construction of the wall section don't seem to be related to the construction of the wall. More like "Early response to construction" or something.

The Layout section looks great.

"Sometimes political prisoners were dramatically released — for a price — at one of the checkpoints. " This doesn't make sense to me - was the proceeding example the only example? If so, this sentence should be restructured. If not, other examples should be included, or at least be specific that there were other examples. Also, "dramatically" seems POV, and "for a price" is vague and unencyclopedic.

I think that The Wall years section should be renamed - perhaps "effects"? Hmm... maybe, maybe not.

A full restructure of the article might work well:

Construction

Layout of the wall

Immediate effects (JFK's visit, military guards, cutting up the public transit system, etc.)

Lasting effects (most of the current The Wall years section)

Was there anything else worth noting during the time the wall was up? Economic effects? Public resentment or reaction?

The fall of the Wall section reads a little like a narrative. Also, was there anything else worth noting?

Celebrations might want to be a subsection under The fall of the Wall section.

"Many German public figures have called these numbers "alarming"." Who? Why?

Hope this helps. If you do all this, and want more help, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I can tell you if I see anything else.--Trevdna 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some major changes to the structure, expanded the WP:LEAD, added more background information, resized the pictures, added the Fechter picture as the most notorious example of the symbolism of the Wall, and did some copyediting. I hope you find it helpful! Kaisershatner 20:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also, it's not that close to WP:FAC/featured article status. EVERYTHING needs to be WP:CITE cited! Kaisershatner 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that far away. It certainly needs citations but I think the article itself is rapidly approaching FA quality. Vicarious 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I learned a lot I didn't know about the Berlin Wall reading this article, pretty interesting stuff. I went through and performed a copyedit and checked and fixed redirects. I hope I don't repeat any comments, but here goes:

Citations. MANY more. This right now if the biggest FA obstacle, and it's a big one.
I've moved inline external links to the references section, but only formatted two. The others need to be formatted (see {{cite web}}) or, better yet, replaced with citations from books, which should be readily available.
Image:Peterfechter2.jpg needs a different licensing tag and fair use rationale.
the wall was a long separation barrier between West Berlin and East Germany - East Germany or East Berlin?
There's a mention about West Berliners buying subsidized goods from East Berlin, and how it's a drain on the economy. Later it's mentioned how East Germans "welcomed" money from legally visiting foreigners (one would assume from purchases). This appears to be a contradiction.
frequently because of lucrative opportunities in the Marshall Plan rebuilding West is written a little confusingly.
There seem to be quite a few one-paragraph sections.
Construction of 45 km (28 miles) around the three western sectors began on Sunday 13 August 1961 in East Berlin. - 45 km of what?
John F. Kennedy had accepted in a speech on 25 July 1961 [1] that it could only really hope to defend West Berliners and West Germans; - this sentence is calling JFK "it".
It was clear both that West German morale needed more and that there was a serious potential threat to the viability of West Berlin. - needed more what?
As such, it was vitally important for the Americans to show the Soviets that they could push their luck no further. - I know what "they" refers to, but this sentence doesn't sit well with me, I think it should be recast.
with 1362 officers and men each - are officers not men?
Lyndon Johnson left a visibly reassured West Berlin - how was the reassurance visible? This needs some support or a citation.
in the hands of Gen. Frederick O. Hartel and his brigade, now of 4224 officers and men. - officers/men notwithstanding, this phrase is awkward.
most importantly, it offered a clear field of fire to the watching guards. - important to whom?
1. Basic wire fence (1961) 2. Improved wire fence (1962-1965) 3. Concrete wall (1965-1975) 4. Grenzmauer 75 (Border Wall 75) (1975-1989) - This should be fleshed out into prose, with a little more description of what each stage was like. Were they expansions of the previous versions, or were prior sections torn down and replaced?
over 116 That's an awfully exact number for an "over xx" type of statement.
East Germans were occasionally given permission to cross, particularly when they were too old to work. - this is pretty interesting, what other circumstances allowed an East German to cross? How old is "too old"?
One location where Westerners could cross the border was Friedrichstraße station... - this paragraph feels like a bunch of sentences thrown together, there's no cohesion.
Varying reports claim either 192 or 239 people were killed - are these the only two numbers claimed, or would a "between xx and xx" or "around xx" be more appropriate?
DDR-WOH is still flying today, but under a different registration. - earlier DDR-WOH is called a registration. So, this registration is flying, but under a different registration. Huh??? The bigger question might be, is it significant that this plane is still flying today? Why?
The most notorious failed attempt was that of Peter Fechter - why was it the most notorious? If the coverage in the media of his death had a significant impact, it should be mentioned.
On 23 August 1989, Hungary removed its border restrictions with Austria - removed or relaxed?
The leader of East Germany, ... Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, ... - is there a more specific term other than "leader" that can be used?
The fall of the Wall considerably changed traffic patterns in the city and the M-Bahn. How? This needs more if it's to stay.
An experimental magnetic levitation train system around 1.6 km (1 mile) in length was demolished just months after its official opening in July 1991 as it used part of the track bed of an underground line previously severed by the wall. - it's not exactly clear how the actual falling of the wall impacted this.

Pagra shtak 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]