Wikipedia:Peer review/Denmark/archive2

Denmark[edit]

As part of the effort to improve this article to FA status we would like a peer review form our fellow editors. All suggestions are welcome! The previous peer review, a little under a year old, can be seen here. MartinDK 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is a little stilted and non-idiomatic in places towards the end of the article. If I get time I'll have a look at it for you. I'll bow to the experts but does it need a few more references? Otherwise it seems very comprehensive and a great article.--Spartaz 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture section (and the special article on Danish Culture) is a fairly arbitrary and chaotic list of famous Danes, ranging from scientists to fictional characters. It never provides an impression of Danish culture, and might as well have been written by the Tourist Council (or, more likely, by a lot of people each adding their favorite Dane to the culture list). It should be didvided into systematic subcategories (Danish science, Danish literature, Danish sports etc.) which in turn should be written with more coherence than the current namedropping. --Sangild 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri[edit]

The lead seems to be a bit too focused on Danish geography to me, I think some of the details should probably be replaced by summaries of other parts of the article.
"the Danish Monarchy is one of the oldest in the world"; is it possible to be more precise? The exact ranking could be interesting
"The Kingdom of Denmark also encompasses two off-shore territories, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, both of which enjoy wideranging home rule" Is it possible to be more exact here? Could you name their formal status? I know the Faroe Islands are considered an "autonomous region", what about Greenland?
"Together with Norwegians and Swedes, they colonised, raided and traded in all parts of Europe." Is it even possible to distinguish between Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes during this period? If not, then this sentence should probably be re-phrased.
The second and third paragraphs repeat the words "union"/"unified" quite a bit, wouldn't it be possible to rephrase them so that they sound a little more fluent.
"The two Schleswig Plebiscites took place on February 10 and March 14, respectively" the context does not say the year explicitly.
"Despite its continued neutrality, Denmark was invaded by Germany (Operation Weserübung), on April 9, 1940." that sentence should probably mention the historical context: WWII.
"The Danish sympathy for the Allied cause was in general strong, but in spite of this fact the economical cooperation between Germany and Denmark continued throughout the war. In 1944, 1,900 Danish police officers were arrested by the Gestapo and sent to the concentration camp Buchenwald, from which many never returned alive." How does one know the sympathy was strong? Was that cooperation voluntary? Why were these police officers deported?
One or two more sentence about Danish history after WWII might also be useful
The fact that the only sub-section in the history section is "The Viking Age" makes it seem, as if everything after that heading is part of the Viking age. Either remove that section heading, or divide the rest of the section into sub-sections. I think the former would probably be a better idea.
"This executive power is exercised on behalf of the monarch by the prime minister and other cabinet ministers who head departments. The cabinet, including the prime minister, and other ministers collectively make up the government." "While the monarch is head of state and theoretically holds all executive power, it is the prime minister who is head of government. The government is answerable chiefly to Parliament; however, ministers do not have to come from Parliament, though it is the modern day custom." A lot of redundancy there.
Parts of the map ("Sjælland", "Fyn") in the geography section need to be translated into English.
"A perfect circle enclosing the same area as Denmark would have a circumference of only 742 km (461 miles)." That sentence should probably be removed. Although this is interesting, it is just another way of expressing the area of the country.
"Administrative divisions" that section only seems to compare the old administration system with the new. It would be better to describe both and then compare the two (and a third step might even be to compare them with other countries)
"The government has been very successful in meeting, and even exceeding, the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (a common European currency) of the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), but Denmark, in a September 2000 referendum, reconfirmed its decision not to join 11 of 13 other EU members in the euro (UK being the other of the EU not to do so)." That sentence is misleading: in 2000 there were 15 EU members, but (I guess) only 13 EMU members.
"As in most countries, the population is not distributed evenly." If that is the case in most countries, than it's probably not worth mentioning.
The education mostly glamorizes the system in Denmark. It should be changed so as to be more NPOV and mention critique if it is notable.
The cuisine section should be merged into the culture section
The military section should tell more about the military itself and less about conscription: how technologically advanced is the military? What about its history?

The main problems, however, are references (there are sections without a single reference!) and copyediting. It is also better IMO, though not required, to use more English language sources. This article still has to be improved quite a bit to reach FA, but I'd like to encourage you to keep at it and hope these comments will help.--Carabinieri 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]