Talk:Thorbjørn Jagland/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA Review, Part 1
''Hi This Feels Right, I'm Hunter. I've started my review below, although I still have more to do. However, to be honest with you, at this point I don't believe the article is ready for GA status. The content is there and the article has lots of potential, but especially once you get down to the Leader of the Labor Party section, there are quite a few grammatical and structural problems. What I would suggest is that we Fail the article, but only for now, and in the meantime you can seek a peer review rather than a GA nomination. This would allow you to focus more specifically on the grammar and structure issues. Then once those issues are resolved, it would be very easy to come back and nominate it for GA again.

However, I've put the beginning of my comments below. If you really want to continue on the GA path, start addressing these objections one by one, and I'll add more suggestions after these are addressed. Again, I think it might be better to fail it for now and go the Peer Review route, but I'll leave it entirely up to you what you want to do.'' --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to proceed, here are my suggestions.

Under Intro:
 * I took out some of the specific dates (months and days) in the first paragraph to make it more succinct; that information is obviously included elsewhere in the article, and I don't think it's needed here. Take a look and let me know if you object to anything in there.
 * Great work :)..... --This Feels Right (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Early career:
 * His birthday should be included at the beginning here. Also, there's no other information about him before his graduation? Might want to move his parents up here and change it to "Early life and career" ✅
 * I made some changes to the first paragraph here to make it more chronological; for example, I moved the fact that he joined the Lier chapter of the Workers' Youth League AUF in 1966 BEFORE his graduations in 1969 and 1975. Take a look at those changes and make sure they look alright to you.
 * Again, great work :D....--This Feels Right (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 1995, Jagland published his first book, titled Brev (Letters)." This requires a citation. ✅

Under Premiership: Under Resignation:
 * This could just be my unfamiliarity with the topic speaking, but what exactly is "the Norwegian House," and what specifically did he say about it? Could you add a bit of that context into the first reference to it?
 * Ain' this enough "It was an attempt at something new, a building project that would also inspire the activity on the side of the parties"?, anyway i'll find more information, but its gonna take some time..... --This Feels Right (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that the only description we have of the Norwegian House is the one that comes from Jagland himself, so it's skewed to his POV. Described this way, there is no indication of why people ridiculed it; the only description we have of it is from somebody who thinks its a great thing. See what I mean? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We were all confused, also at the time. No-one except Jagland understood what this "Norwegian House" was all about. It was a vision he completely failed to communicate&mdash;I do not even know if it was a vision or just a gimmick. He was trying to get back to the post-war era when politicians were ambitious and wanted to build the country, but Jagland completely failed at communicating this, and was mocked by the people and press alike, which, along with him threatening the voters in the following election, practically made the Labour Party loose the government for eight years. I know that this comment was very POV, sorry, it is just very hard to explain without labeling it a communication fiasko, especially when no-one understood it. Anyway, I will take a look at it. Arsenikk (talk)  09:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is much clearer now, but one more question. You describe this as a "metaphor," but is this "House" supposed to be an actual building he wanted constructed? Or was he simply using the idea of a house as a metaphor to illustrate his theories, and it was never proposed as a building construction? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In August, a former Soviet spy described Jagland as a buddy politician in the 1970s and 80s." Can you reword this so it's a bit clearer what exactly this means?✅
 * Sorry, but I'm still confused. Does "buddy politician" mean something specific? Or do you mean that this spy claimed that Jagland was a politician on friendly terms that were deemed suspicious with the Soviets? Or that he was simply a buddy of this spy (in which case, why is that significant)?
 * I'd recommend something more like, "In August, a former Soviet spy said Jagland had been politically friendly with the soviets in the 1970s and 80s, which raisd suspicious in Norway." At least, that's how I interpret it from how it's written now. Is this right? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, before I started editing this article, there was a  [clarification needed]  listed after "Because of his diplomatic stand with the Soviet agents, posing somewhat as a diplomat..." Please make sure you address that.✅
 * Think i've fixed it... . --This Feels Right (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Because he was willing to hold diplomatic talks with Soviet agents, trying to pose somewhat as a diplomat..." This is better, but it still has some problems. It sounds a bit like POV. Did Jagland ever say he was POSING as a diplomat? Or was it simply a case that he was trying to be diplomatic in holding talks with the Soviet agents? Either way, could you change it appropriately? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at it now, what do you think??
 * The wording hasn't changed. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now it has change, I'm sure OF it.... :)..... --This Feels Right (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "While Jagland won the position thanks to the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) leader Yngve Hågensen." This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Also, what position are you referring to? The Leader of the Labor Party? Because if that's the case, shouldn't this be moved to the next section? ✅

Under Leader of the Labor Party:
 * Can you add a brief reference explaining who exactly Synnøve Svabø is? ✅
 * Also, did Jagland place his hands on Svabø's breasts on purpose, by accident, as an ill-advised joke, making a pass at her? Or was it unclear? Can you put that into this paragraph?✅
 * The whole part from "During an interview with Kirstin Karlsen..." to ..."So Stoltenberg and I came to the same conclusion, that we had to try to form a majority government." should be condensed. We don't need all four quotes to be used. Paraphrase part of it, and use perhaps only one quote. ✅
 * I removed one, is that enough?....--This Feels Right (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, who is Kirstin Karlsen? Can you add a brief reference to who she is to give it some context?
 * Added that she was a journalist from Aftenposten. But she ain't really that notable as Svabø as an example. She is simply a journalist, nothing else. --This Feels Right (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jagland settled as Minister of Foreign Affairs." This sentence seems a little POV to me. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply say "was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs." If Jagland ever said or gave the impression that he was somehow "settling" by taking the position, you should mention that, but also cite it with a legitimate source. Or, if the media speculated that he was "settling" by taking the job, say that and cite it as well.
 * He was actually suppose to be the Prime Minister candidate for the Labour Party since he was the leader of the party, but instead he was forced to give the PM office to Stoltenberg, so its the truth. He settled for Minister of Foreign Affairs. --This Feels Right (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my new objection under the POWER STRUGGLE section. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "This was not uncontroversial." This sentence needs to go; it's very POV and it just doesn't read well. If the media perceived it to be controversial, I'd suggest revising the previous sentence to say something like, "Jagland was replaced as party leader by Jens Stoltenberg the following year under circumstances many in the media deemed controversial." Otherwise, I'd just drop the "This was not uncontroversial" sentence and let the paragraph speak for itself; people will see it's controversial without you having to state it. ✅
 * "In 2001, an unnamed source within the party commented that..." Commented to whom? A newspaper? If so, name the newspaper. If not, name whoever or whatever it was said to. ✅
 * "In 1998, four leaders and treasurers of Oslo AUF were sentenced to jail as part of the Workers' Youth League membership scandal. The were convicted of fraud against the City of Oslo, after they had filed excessive membership numbers. The motive had been to receive increased municipal grants, and to strengthen the youth wing's political position. The court case revealed that most youth parities and their leaders had been doing this since the 1970s." I think this part needs to be tightened a bit, since it doesn't have to do with Jagland, but is merely setting the stage for his testimony and his role in it. I'd suggest rewording it to something like this, "In 1998, four leaders and treasurers of Oslo AUF were convicted of fraud and jailed as part of the Workers' Youth League membership scandal. They were found to have filed excessive membership numbers in order to receive increased municipal grants, and hte court case revealed that most youth parties and their leaders had been engaging in this practice since the 1970s." ✅
 * The testimony about the Workers' Youth League membership scandal occurred in 1998, yet you have it in this article AFTER information about the power struggle that ended in 1999 and 2000, AND after Jagland's relinguishing the post in 2001. To make this more chronologically correct, you should move that entire section up and place it after the comment Jagland made saying "we put the foot down and stand on it."✅
 * Actually, I've looked at it again and changed my mind. I think the power struggle should be first in this section; even though it ends in 2000, it starts in 1997, so it should come first. I moved both the 1998 things to be AFTER that. Take a look at it and let me know if it still works for you. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me....--This Feels Right (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there are references in the title and body of this article to the "Labor Party". Shouldn't it be the "Labour Party"?✅ --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

About the Jagland/Stoltenberg power struggle: Under Minister of Foreign Affairs:
 * There is information about the power struggle in both the Leader of the Labor Party section and the Minister of Foreign Affairs section, and the there is some overlap between the two which makes the article a little bit redundant. I would suggest you make a new subtopic under the Leader of the Labor Party section called Jagland/Stoltenberg power struggle. Then take all the information about the struggle out of those two sections and put it under this new one. Let me know what you think about this suggestion.
 * The Minister of Foreign Affairs doesn't mention the power struggle, but the election results of Stoltenbergs first cabinet which Jagland was Minister of Foreign Affairs so.....
 * OK, I suppose you are right about this, HOWEVER there is some overlap. Under Leader of the Labor Party, you have this: "After several years of strife, Stoltenberg became the party's prime minister candidate, and in 2000 he took over as Prime Minister after Kjell Magne Bondevik resignation. Jagland settled as Minister of Foreign Affairs." But then most of that information is repeated in more detail under Minister of Foreign Affairs. I understand you have to include some of that under Leader of the Labor Party to resolve the whole power struggle issue, so I'd recommend you condense the part under Leader of the Labor Party to read like this: "After several years of strife, the power struggle was essentially concluded in 2000, when Stoltenberg became the party's prime minister candidate and Jagland settled as Minister of Foreign Affairs." What do you think? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job :).... --This Feels Right (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed the wording accordingly then. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2000, the first cabinet of Bondevik resignated..." Do you mean "resigned" instead of "resignated"? ✅

''Like I said above, let me know if you want me to continue doing this review. If you do, I'll add more comments. If not, I suggest you try a GA nomination again after you've worked on the article a bit more. Either way, best of luck!'' --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review, Part 2

 * There are still some unstruck objections from above that need to be addressed, don't forget about those.
 * Also, please look over the grammatical changes and tweaks I made and make sure I didn't accidentally make anything inaccurate.

Under Minister of Foreign Affairs
 * "...this time for the phrase "Bongo from Congo", originally coined as an internal joke in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the expense of the President of Gabon, Omar Bongo." This is sort of unclear. I'm guessing what happened here is that Jagland referred to Omar Bongo as "Bongo from Congo," but the above sentence is sort of a roundabout way of saying it. Could you rephrase it? Also, could you include the circumstances under which he said it? (Did he say it on a talk show? Did he say it to a newspaper reporter? Was he overheard saying it?) And also, can you say why it is offensive? For example, the main article Bongo from Congo indicates it was considered racial insensitive because it conjured mental imagery of African savagery.✅
 * How is it now?..... --This Feels Right (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jagland lost the position as Foreign Minister as the Labour cabinet again held office for only one year, succeeded by the second cabinet of Bondevik, following the 2001 election. While appointed to the cabinet, his seat in parliament had been occupied by Frank Willy Larsen." Shouldn't this be moved to the END of this section, since it's about his leaving the position?✅
 * The link to red cross is a disambiguation. Can you change the wikilink to specify which red cross you mean?✅
 * "During the 2001 election, voters gave the Labour Party a hard time" This is not worded in a very encyclopedic way. Can you rephrase it to something like "The Labour Party did not fare well during the 2001 election" or something like that?✅
 * "With the 98% votes reported..." Isn't there any information on what the results were when all 100% were reported? If so, please put that in, and you may want to drop the "We will have to make a decision..." quote from Jagland altogether.✅
 * Suprisingly no, but i'll see if im able to dig something up, but most of the newspaper articles around the world are reporting / using the number 98 etc in NYT, BBC, Aftenposten, Verdens Gang, Dagbladet, The Seattle Times and many more --This Feels Right (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Labour Party did not fare well during the 2001 election because of the unhappiness with lack of nursery schools, retirement homes and a declining standard of public education in Norway fueled the run to other parties. [clarification needed][neutrality disputed] " Someone added this. Please reword to address it. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added those tags because I don't understand what "fueled the run to other parties" means, and the foregoing statement is a camouflaged POV I have by the way never heard in the public debate before. If we want to explain why they lost the 2001 election, we need to quote specific political scientists. Punkmorten (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone added a [clarification needed] to this statement: "With the 98% votes reported, the Labour Party only received 24%, falling from 35%." TFR said he couldn't find any sources that had 100% of the votes reported. Could you try to find some? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That took me less than a minute to find. Statistics Norway has the results here. Arsenikk (talk)  21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Under President of the Storting:
 * This could be a cultural misreading on my part, but under, "The principle, Elmar Åserud, did not wish to comment the case any further." Should that be principal? Or is principle correct?✅ principle is something else --This Feels Right (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you say in here why Canada and Israel might boycott the conference?
 * That information is not released jet
 * Yes it has been. This source has some info. I added it myself, look it over to make sure you're OK with it. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2009, the cabinet issued a proposal to remove the "Blasphemy Paragraph", part of the criminal law that made blasphemous statements a criminal offense. There was political agreement in parliament that the paragraph was outdated. The cabinet proposed that it instead by replaced by a "Racism Paragraph", that was aimed at protecting religious groups from attacts, while retraining a protection on the academic freedom of speach. All politicial parties in parliament, except the Centre Party, were opposed to the "Racism Paragraph", but Centre-leader Liv Signe Navarsete stated that she had used her influence to make the Labour Party except the matter." This should be condensed. This really has nothing to do yet with Jagland, and by the time you get to this comments and involvement in this issue, that Jagland part of it is shorter than the part that comes before it.
 * "When questioned about why he did not run for reelection, Jagland stated: "It is with great sadness I withdraw from Norwegian politics next year." I'm confused. Are you saying here he isn't running for reelection in 2009? If so you you really need to explain this better: i.e., when he announced he wasn't running for reelection, why he isn't running, when his term ended or will end? You say "next year," but there's no context to explain what year that actually is. (Or are you saying this relates to back in 2002? If that's right, this needs to be moved to a different section)✅
 * This is better, but I think it should just be specifically stated. Something more like " Jagland announced in September 2008 that he would not seek reelection, saying he made the decision with "great sadness." " See what I mean? Also, there really should be more information here. Surely the source must say something about WHY he decided not to run? Didn't he cite any specific reasons or factors in his decision? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it now. --This Feels Right (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Post-parliament:
 * "...because Jagland would apply for the position of Secretary-General of the Council of Europe in the summer of 2009." Do you mean that he is planning on applying for the position? Please reword it to indicate that. Also, what connection does his visit to Andrus Ansip have to this decision? Is this where he announced his intention to run? If so, that should be included too.✅
 * Look at my change and let me know if it's correct. Also, can you include anything about why he decided to run for that job? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work again Hunter :).....--This Feels Right (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Political views and Personal life:
 * One of the biggest problems with the article is show short these two sections are. In order to meet the GA Criteria, no one section should be so much smaller than the other sections. Is there any way you can find more information for both of these sections and add them in to expand them? If you're having trouble, you could combine them into one section called Political views and personal life, but either way you'll still need to get more information.
 * Combining early life and personal life was an excellect solution to this. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Under Political views, some suggestions on how you can expand it: Why does he favor Norwegian membership in the European Union? What is his book My European Dream about? What does the book say? How well received and reviewed was it in Norway? Did it sell well? Why does he feel the EU should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? What are some reactions from other people to his opinion on that matter? Is there anything else to say about the Socialist International thing? What accomplishments, if any, did he have as chairman of the Socialist International Committee on the Middle East and/or the Oslo Center? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i'll add more information about the EU, SI, Obamas rise to power etc. --This Feels Right (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to support the rather short personal life section. In Norway, it is very uncommon to mix personal and political life (except for in the gossip magazines, that are read by those not really interested in politics). I am overly interested in politics, and I could not name you the spouse of a single politician (except those that are married to other politicians), while I could name you the spouse of several foreign politicians. Personally I would like to have divided the article into more ==-headers, and would rather have personal life mixed with the post-political section of early life. I will take a go at it, and we can see how it looks. As for political views, I will try to find some sources. Arsenikk (talk)  09:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal section is just fine now. The only thing you need to worry about is the Political views section. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:This Feels Right has been blocked. I will take over the work to get the article up to GA, since I have also been working on it. I am a little short on time these days, so I might spend a few days on this. Arsenikk (talk)  11:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not doing any work the last few days. I have been very busy in real life, and suddenly all my GA nominations seem to be issuing at the same time. I will work more on this after the weekend. Sorry for the inconvenience. Arsenikk (talk)  08:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since any new objections have been addressed, and about a week since I inquired about it to the reviewer, so I'm going to go ahead and not pass this one due to inactivity. In any event, I think you should probably put this in for a peer review before pursuing a good article nomination. Once you do that, and address the above nominations, I'd definitely suggest you nominate it for a good article again. When you do, let me know and I'd be happy to review it again. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)