Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Finnish parliamentary election, 2011/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011.

Finnish parliamentary election, 2011

 * Nominator(s): Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA and peer review recommendations are tackled. It has scope for growth in status as the articles subject is done and there is not much more new stuff to come out. It is also one of the best election articles and most comprehensive of a non-english speaking country (those have more editors). I edit the majority of election articles since ive been on on WP so i think i should know its worth ;) Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why so many citations in the lead?
 * Where footnotes are at the end of a sentence, please ensure that the closing period appears before the footnotes and is not omitted
 * Ensure that all foreign-language sources are identified as such, and that English sources are not misidentified as foreign-language (as in FN 112)
 * FN 22: publisher?
 * Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using base URLs, website names or publishers
 * Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
 * Publication names should be italicized
 * Check formatting of quotes within quotes
 * FN 72: formatting
 * Bloomberg or Bloomberg L.P.
 * Check for minor formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * In general, make sure formatting is consistent - for example, compare FNs 101 and 102
 * FN 103: retrieval date?
 * Make typographical changes to source titles to comply with our local manual of style - for example, don't write a title in all-caps
 * Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name firstLihaas (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * check for consistent naming - for example, The Wallstreet Journal or The Wall Street Journal? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most articles have it that way, thought stndard practice. Ill remove some. better?
 * usually ref note is after period, no? seen that way everywhere.
 * 112 is a Finnish source and labeled as such. did a review of them sometime back to add lang tags seems sorted
 * done
 * will review
 * ah! there was some debate on that earlier, think some got entered in and others not. will remove
 * agree fully, though it was, per above some might have escaped
 * will do
 * what about? it was bot reflinked i believe.
 * okay will do. usually bloomberg mentioned on WP so ill go with that
 * will do
 * seems to already mention "Retrieved 12 July 2011" seems done
 * will do
 * will do
 * per above italicise
 * will get it done in a day or 2? should be free tomorrow.Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape checks - Copyscape has revealed some issues that need addressing.
 * Close paraphrasing with Agenda Magazine
 * This source might have been used, but does not seem to have been cited. Graham Colm (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the first one. it seems the bold text is just a handful of words and not whole scale copying. --> okay, i reworded some stuff, but quite frankly that software is crap. it catches some similar words from a sentence with WILDLY different meanings that simply happen to mention a similar word like "prime minister" or the name of the party. Crossing off above as done, if not then tell me and ill redo.
 * 2nd is already cited to WSJ, probably overoll got it from here or there. Lihaas (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean Duplication Detector, I didn't use that software; I used Copyscape and we still have "Investigations focused on a group of...entrepreneurs called Kehittyvien Maakuntien Suomi (“Finland of Developing Provinces”), who" and "at the core of the accusations after". Taken from here .Graham Colm (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - for now. There are problems with the prose. There is redundancy such as "in order to", "similar looking", "in regard to affecting", "at the end of the advance voting period, the total number of advance votes"  and "cast their vote". There are odd expressions such as "hot button issue", "a scandal...broke", "in a party conference" (should be "at") "upon the media then delving further into the issue" (should be "when the media delved further") and "the effect of the Finnish election on a possible EU bailout was concerning to international investors", the "was concerning" sounds odd. Is the tense right here "the Green League, which was part of the governing coalition, has announced"? The "maintain a need" sounds odd here "the SDP's Urpilainen said that the party would maintain a need to cut pensions". I don't think value added tax should be hyphenated, and I'm not sure about "65-years-old". A comma is needed here, "the parties were preparing for future electoral reform which would not provide for electoral alliances" or change "which" to "that" depending on the logic. Lastly, the info box looks very cluttered; are all the details needed such as "leader since"? Graham Colm (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm leery featuring something that happened only five months ago. While I don't think it will change drastically enough to be unstable, I think it's a bit soon to tell. I'm not opposing, however, because I haven't reviewed the content. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.