Talk:2011 Finnish parliamentary election/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: – Bellatores (t.) 10:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:
   • Seems to be generally well written. Some issues though;
     • When using only the form Eduskunta in the lead, it should be noted in parenthesis what this is exactly (Parliament of Finland). Done
     • The opinion polling table could better be cut down sligthly to be limited to one year of polls. On my screen, the table currently floats somewhat out of the page. Done
     • Is the stock market arrows really needed for the table of election results? I think it is somewhat inappropriate. I know they are used on Swedish election pages (for some reason), but they are not used anywhere else. Could the table be changed more into how these normally are on Wikipedia election pages? Done>???
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
   • Generally well-sourced; but there are some tags (clarification, citation needed etc. Done) and dead links that must be addressed for the article to be passed as GA. Done
3. Broad in its coverage:
   • No apparent problems.
4. Neutral:
   • No apparent problems.
5. Stable:
   • The article is stable; no edit-wars or such.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
   • No problems.

Please address the issues I found for now, as the article will not be able to pass before this has been done. When they have been addressed, I will look over the article again. – Bellatores (t.) 10:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

First point about Eduskunta done, going to split off polls section (itll also shorten the page), i dont quite understand what is meant by the third point, and im in the process of working with the other main editor to address the tags.Lihaas (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: only need 3 deadlinks addressing as far as i an see.(Lihaas (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)).

Well, it is not actually so much the red/green arrows, as that each row of the table is more inflated than necessary. If you check the tables on other recent elections (i.e. [1] [2] [3] [4]), you can clearly see that they all easily fit most of, if not the entire results table in a single picture frame. Only one line is used for each party in these tables, while each party gets three lines here. It is my opinion that this is a waste of space, which also makes it a bit more difficult to read and get a decent overview. – Bellatores (t.) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enouigh, ive now removed the translations which are mosre suited to the party pages.Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

At the moment the chart shows that "Other unrepresented parties" got 98.5 % of the vote; that should refer to represented parties. Also, there's something wrong with the Communist Workers' Party's paragraph on the chart. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved all issues now.(Lihaas (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).

You need to address a few more issues before I can pass the article;

• A "why" tag remains under the "Debates" subsection.
• You should address the issue pointed out by the ip over your last comment here; I would suggest just scrapping that particular row, as I don't really see what its purpose is. Also fix the Communist Workers' Party row.
• There is also a "which" tag under the election table, as well as a "why" tag under "Reactions", Domestic.
• There appears to still be some dead links in the article; check it here [5] – Bellatores (t.) 18:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I cant see anything wrong with the Comms on the chart but sorted the other bit.

Asked the finnish ip on the why tag, as the source is in finnish and ic an read

Fixed 2 deadlinks, waiting for the third if the finnish ip can do itLihaas (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. (Not sure if this is the proper format to put my point...) The Government formation section should contain a brief summary of the agreed-upon government program, (while the full article would be at Jyrki Katainen's cabinet). -- Frous (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

this should be for the talk page. but be WP:BOLDLihaas (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. But I mean, to get the GA status, it needs also a brief summary on how policies are going to change (or remain the same), acc. to the government platform plus some brief political analysis on the platform by third parties. Because, surprise surprise, that's what a democratic election is usually for — a discussion to determine whether to maintain or change policies. -- Frous (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

true, be bold and add it with sources.Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article has recently been the subject of extensive edit-warring and massive content discussions on its talk page. Because of this, and because the article has been on hold for almost a month already, I don't see myself having any other choice but to fail this GA nomination. When the article has become stable again, and all the discussions are resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks. – Bellatores (t.) 21:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)