When I read this Vienna article, I agree that it has perhaps a bit less marketing speak (although I don't think the two paragraphs from the Wiki Intro you pulle

When I read this Vienna article, I agree that it has perhaps a bit less marketing speak (although I don't think the two paragraphs from the Wiki Intro you pulled are indicative of the whole article) but it is not any less positive on the city. In the linked article I think paragraphs 3 and 4 ("Vienna is among..." and "Viennese Lebenskunst...") basically read like they are from a Travel Guidebook on why you should add Vienna to your next itinerary. I think it also showcases two of the major problems I have with Britannica and most other "old school" encyclopedias: 1. A general aversion to putting dates with facts. For instance the article states that 2 million visitors comes to the city annually. The Wiki article links to statistics from the city that put that number much higher. I understand that the 2 million number may be from some time ago, but I have no way of knowing. My assumption has always been that they do not put dates on things to prevent appearing out of date. They are really good at putting dates on "history" but seem to be much more hesitant on putting dates on "current" information which makes me think that a lot of that "current" information is already "history" 2. Lack of any sort of citations. I do generally trust Britannica, but it would be nice to get information about where they are getting their information.