Talk:National Coalition Party/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chetsford (talk · contribs) 16:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Request: I would change this - ("with long-running President Kekkonen") to this ("with the long-serving President Kekkonen"). "Long-running" seems more appropriate to use in reference to an event. I could find no other issues, however, the article underwent a full copy-edit recently so, presumably, that is why. Everything looks solid. The Oxford comma is not used in the article, however, lack of use is consistent throughout, which is fine per WP:COMMA. Agree, request done. Manelolo (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC) New Request: Can we substitute this (and only slowly gained back support) for this (and only slowly regained support)? Sounds more proper, done! Manelolo (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	My personal preference is for no citations in the lede, however, MOS:CITELEAD suggests sourcing in the case of potentially "controversial" questions. Given the way citations are used here I find that acceptable. The standards of MOS:LEDE are met. The overall layout is comprehensible and similar to that used for other parties on WP. Lists are used sparingly and appropriately. All other MOS criteria are met. No DAB issues found. Italics properly used for Finnish words as per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Request:The list of party chairs currently has no sources. Everything else looks good. Data presented in charts and table format is not inline sourced, however, I think that given the presentation format used it's fine. List of party chairs archived to talk per request since no suitable ref is on the horizon. Manelolo (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There is some sourcing to the party itself, or party affiliated organizations, however, this is used to source functional material that is non-controversial. Beyond these, I count 30 sources divided (roughly) as follows: x1 - Finnish Election Research Consortium (a research body headed by Heikki Paloheimo, a professor at the University of Tampere) x10 - books from academic or mainstream publishers x3 - scholarly journals x1 - official websites of reputable, third-party organizations x2 - University of Turku x1 - University of Helsinki x10 - major, mainstream newspapers or other media x2 - Government of Finland Two sources are to the party organs, however, a footnote qualifies each statement which they support appropriately. Two sources are offline only. I have only partially verified the content against sources. As some of the sources are in Finnish, I'll save this part for the final stage of the review, once everything else is complete. I've just finished verifying all the English-language sources. Will check Finnish-language sources by looking for equivalent English sourcing and then, failing that, asking for a second opinion. OK, I can now verify the accuracy of the statements attributed to the Finnish-language sources to alternate English-language sources I've been able to locate with the exception of four, which support relatively simple sentences. Those four appear essentially accurate based on a very choppy Google Translate translation.
	2c. it contains no original research.	criteria met
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig returns violation unlikely. All quotations are either presented in block or with quotation marks. There is no excessive quoting.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I was initially concerned that there was no section on the youth or student wings, and thought adding those would be appropriate. However, it appears even the party's own webpage has a paucity of information. A more general search by me was unable to uncover substantial, additional information that might be missing. This article seems to represent the most inclusive treatment of the subject with the material available.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	meets criteria
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	meets criteria
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The nominator is the only editor who has made substantial edits to this article since early December, so there is no indication of edit warring. There are no outstanding issues on the Talk page (or issues of any kind, really).
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are either public domain or released to WP, with the exception of the logo in the infobox which qualifies under fair use. Overall, the article is well-illustrated.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are appropriate and make use of appropriate captions. All images have ALT text.
	7. Overall assessment.

Whoa Chetsford, that was fast and efficient, thank you! I addressed both of your requests. Manelolo (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Manelolo - thanks very much. This is a great article so it was easy to review. Given the language issue, it's going to take me a bit longer to get through criteria 2B. I'll ping you soon when I'm done. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Manelolo - Everything now looks good except I have one additional recommendation under 1A. Other than that I think this looks good to go. Chetsford (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, thank you immensely for the very thorough review! I amended your request. Manelolo (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This article meets the GA criteria as reflected in the above review and discussion. Chetsford (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.