Do you have any examples? Or is this just a vague impression? There have been studies done about this by neutral outside researchers which found that generally Wikipedia was more comprehensive and more reliable than other encyclopedias.
I say this as someone who likes Vienna and thinks the quality-of-life studies are correct. But this information belongs in a sub-header, not in the introduction of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna
Vienna is known for its high quality of life. In a 2005 study of 127 world cities, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked the city first (in a tie with Vancouver and San Francisco) for the world's most liveable cities. Between 2011 and 2015, Vienna was ranked second, behind Melbourne.[20][21][22][23][24] In 2018, it replaced Melbourne as the number one spot.[25] For ten consecutive years (2009–2019), the human-resource-consulting firm Mercer ranked Vienna first in its annual "Quality of Living" survey of hundreds of cities around the world.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Monocle's 2015 "Quality of Life Survey" ranked Vienna second on a list of the top 25 cities in the world "to make a base within."[34][35][36][37][38]
The UN-Habitat classified Vienna as the most prosperous city in the world in 2012/2013.[39] The city was ranked 1st globally for its culture of innovation in 2007 and 2008, and sixth globally (out of 256 cities) in the 2014 Innovation Cities Index, which analyzed 162 indicators in covering three areas: culture, infrastructure, and markets.[40][41][42] Vienna regularly hosts urban planning conferences and is often used as a case study by urban planners.[43]
Between 2005 and 2010, Vienna was the world's number-one destination for international congresses and conventions.[44] It attracts over 6.8 million tourists a year.
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.
If you start trying random less prominent (or non-European) cities, you’ll find Britannica’s coverege to often be quite limited.
For example, compare (just picked at random)
https://www.britannica.com/place/Al-Raqqah vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raqqa
https://www.britannica.com/place/Zhongshan vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhongshan
https://www.britannica.com/place/Wichita-Kansas vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ulaanbaatar vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulaanbaatar
https://www.britannica.com/place/Lagos-Nigeria vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos
https://www.britannica.com/place/Colombo vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo
https://www.britannica.com/place/Reykjavik vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk
https://www.britannica.com/place/Tampico-Mexico vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampico
https://www.britannica.com/place/Belem-Brazil vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel%C3%A9m