Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turku/archive3

Turku
Partial self-nom. The issues raised in the two previous FAC nominations (archive1, archive2) have been met, and I think the article is good enough to be a FA. - ulayiti (talk)  12:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. No inline citations, especially for statistics. AndyZ 20:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. What AndyZ said. Otherwise I'm ready to support.--Jyril 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just referenced all statistics and a whole load of other information with the inote template. (Having footnotes would, in my opinion, make the article look ugly, since there would be quite a lot of them.) - ulayiti (talk)  23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree witgh ulayiti, and I still don't in the least believe that inline citations should be a requirement since statistics on Turku are hardly a controversial subject. Making a sub-section in References listing all the statistical sources should be more than enough. / Peter Isotalo 09:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No inline citations, weasel terms, no mention of the city problems. JoaoRicardotalk 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. Can you provide examples of weasel terms in the article (because I can't find any)? As to problems, you must have missed the following paragraph in the 'Economy' section:  'As of 2004, the city's unemployment rate is 13.1%, well above the national average of 8.9%. The problem of unemployment is particularly troublesome in the districts of Pansio, Lauste, and Varissuo, where it hovers at around 23%.'  I've added a few more sentences about some other problems as well. - ulayiti (talk)  01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some weasel terms and some comments in which the author's opinion has crept into the article text:
 * "the Port of Turku is considered one of the most important seaports in Finland." Considered by whom?
 * Changed to 'one of the busiest'. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but now it needs a source. JoaoRicardotalk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Turku has a strong cultural identity" A matter of opinion.
 * Removed 'strong'. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, "Turku has a cultural identity" isn't much useful. I believe it is better to drop this. JoaoRicardotalk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Turku is usually considered Finland's 'second city'." Considered by whom?
 * A lot of people, but it's a bit difficult to change this, since attributing this statement to a specific body would be quite difficult. I did a Google search for turku finland's second city and it came up with a lot of stuff, including this. And somehow saying VIA Magazine considers Turku Finland's second city wouldn't sound very good. Any ideas on how to improve this one? - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend dropping it. We should stick to verifiable sources. If there are no verifiable sources, then it is better not the include this in the article. JoaoRicardotalk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "the city became the most important location in medieval Finland." Important by what standard? Number of inhabitants? Economy?
 * It's explained in the following paragraph. It was the archbishop's seat, the only city to trade with the Hanseatic League, the largest city, and the capital of Finland. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But don't you think it is better to leave this judgement to the reader? JoaoRicardotalk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Turku has been viewed during the 20th century as 'Finland's gateway to the West' as a result of its good connections with other Western European countries and cities." Viewed by whom?
 * Clarified that this is the opinion of Jarmo Virmavirta. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Since the 1940s, there have been particularly strong ties with Stockholm" Strong by what standards?
 * This is from Virmavirta as well. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "The region is usually considered to include, in addition to the city itself, at least the neighbouring cities..." Considered by whom?
 * Well, they're part of the metropolitan area, which has quite a specific definition. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Turku is an important administrative centre" By what standard?
 * It's explained in the same sentence. It's the capital of both the province and the region, it has a Court of Appeal, and the Archbishop of Finland sits in Turku. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Olavi Mäenpää, chairman of the far-right organisation Suomen Kansan Sinivalkoiset (SKS), is a highly controversial figure in the city's municipal politics." In whose opinion?
 * Changed to 'has provoked some controversy in the local media'. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "In the last municipal elections in 2004, he received more votes than any other candidate in Turku, probably in large part due to protest votes." Speculation.
 * But true. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be true, but it is speculation nonetheless. Better drop it. JoaoRicardotalk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "For a city of its size, Turku has a good public transportation network of bus routes." By what standard?
 * By frequency of services. It's explained two sentences later. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Turku has always welcomed new influences" A matter of opinion.
 * Explained in the same sentence. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Turku has a long educational history" Peacock statement.
 * Changed to 'longer educational history than any other Finnish city'. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "The city also hosts another rock festival, Down by the Laituri, and boasts a vibrant nightlife" The vibrant nightlife is a matter of opinion.
 * Actually it's pretty much a given, and something that most Finnish people know. How do you suggest it should be phrased? - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, it is dificult to write about people's intuitions. Saying that this is something most people in Finland know is not verifiable. If there is no source for it, writing about it yourself might be viewed as original research. I recommend removing it. JoaoRicardotalk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the problems, I was wrong. There are indeed some mentions of them. How about expanding it? ;-) JoaoRicardotalk 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See the 'People' section and the end of the 'History' section. I don't think there's much more that could be added. I mean, I could write a lot about the primary school in Kakskerta closing down, but that would not be very relevant to the article. - ulayiti (talk)  19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the article but I don't know where else to go. The article states that Turku was the capital of Finland from 1809 - 1812. Fair enough. But what was the capital of Finland prior to this? I thought that Turku was the capital from the time of the Archbishopric of Finland being founded. If the answer to this was to be Sweden's Stockholm would we argue that the capital of Ireland was London until Irish Independence? If the capital of the Duchy of Finland was somewhere else prior to 1809, could we have this mentioned in the article and if the Swedish administration was based in Turku before 1809 can we have Turku as the capital of Finland from the time that that admininstration began. Just three years as the capital seems to negate an awful lot of Turku's history as the primum mobile of cities in Finland. Jatrius 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, the article about Turku looks really good. Can we have a nomination for Helsinki as well? J I P  | Talk 14:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)