Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Nokian Tyres/1

Nokian Tyres

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Keep per improvements made and comments below. Geometry guy 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for community reassessment as I believe that the article fails GA status on: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prose: poorly written with bad grammar, inconsistent spelling, e.g. tires and tyres
 * Referencing: The article relies heavily on primary sources, and includes several dubious sources including passing mentions on commercial websites and very few 3rd party RS.


 * The "tire" → "tyres" are my fault since I'm a silly American in a rush. Am going to fix it now. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry about that. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is a very small and specialized company. They are not Michelin or Goodyear. They mainly make tires for the local and regional market near Finland and have a small, loyal following for snow tires around the world. It started out as a stub 3 years ago and was difficult to write because little is known about the company but was expanded several times over. This is the background that others should know if they wish to evaluate the GA. It is not like Bristol, which is a big city. It is more like trying to write an article about the Stepping Out Theatre Company of Bristol.

None of the sources used are unreliable. The company references are used for facts, not overly positive statements. The company is small so many financial profiling companies do not review Nokian. I purposely tried to stay away from car magazines, which receive advertising and are less reliable than the sources that I referenced. Sources like the BBC News do not reference Nokian at all because Nokian Tyres does not engage in scandal, fraud, excessive pollution, etc.

Disclaimer: I do not own an Nokian tyres. I drive on Goodyears. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have looked at all the references and my analysis is below:


 * Corrections added as a list for which references I'll look for a 2nd reference. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of RS, the rest SPS or rehashed press realeases and information from outfits selling Nokian tyres. Yet a simple Google News search brings up lots of possible leads to good refs.  At present the article appears as a collection of random facts backed up by statements on the company website. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been asked what SPS means, WP:SPS = self published sources, they may be used with care but should not be the overall majority of cites. You could try Google News and Google Scholar using Nokian Tyres as the search term. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will work on this. Thank you for telling me of Google News search, which is different from Google search.  May I also point out that the above suggestion, while very good, is not a criteria for a GA.  The GA criteria states "The good article criteria measure decent articles...they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles."  The use of SPS has been done carefully and wholly in compliance with RS guidelines.  This doesn't mean I won't improve the article; I will.  However, please :)  consider that the above suggestions are suggestions, not requirements for GA. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the task of finding addition references. Also consider:

Policy shortcut:

WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving; I never used anything from the company that said they were good

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly such self published sources should not be the majority of sourcing for an article. In order to satisfy the broadly based criteria what is needed is some commentary by non-involved 3rd parties.  There is plenty there in the press, go get it.  And cut out the tyre dealerships, etc.  They are in no way RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will certainly work on it! :) An article can always be improved and I want to do it! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of 68 references, 14 are from Nokian Tyre, 4 from Vianor, a much lower percentage than before. For some information, the Nokian references are top rate and the best, such as finding out the names of the products as other sources are likely to talk about only 1 product model.  Nokian references are never used to prove that a certain tire model is the best.  Will continue to work on finding other references. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you cannot find information such as product names from reliable sources, then you should simply omit this information from the article. Just include some general information about main the products. Offliner (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just took a quick look at the article. I do not believe this meets GA criteria. The chapter organization seems clumsy, and the prose isn't too good. But it shouldn't be too much work to fix all this.

Some examples:
 * Bad organization: the last paragraph in "history" does not belong in this chapter, since it describes the current situation. A new chapter should be created for this paragraph.
 * Bad prose: "The plant uses radio frequency devices to keep attract of 100 metre long strips of rubber tread and to keep sufficent stocks, but not overstocks, near the tire production equipment." This should be clarified - I have no idea what this (especially ...to keep attract of...) means.

Regarding the sources, I think company publications such as annual reports are reliable sources about the company itself. Things like company history, statistics, etc. can be taken from these sources, but should be coupled with information from third-party sources. Online retail sites are not reliable sources and they should be replaced as soon as possible. Offliner (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. The last paragraph in history...I agree with you completely and was going to make a separate section.  Annual reports are very reliable because if they lie, they could get sued by investors.  Another reviewer mistakenly thought that annual reports were self published sources and not to be used. All online retail sites have been removed as references.  Improvement is a continous process and a lot of work is expected in the next 7-10 days so please allow the opportunity for this to happen before stripping the GA title. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another sentence that makes doesn't make much sense is Nokian tyre demand is seasonal but the company has improved the extent of the fluctuations. Offliner (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, fixed that. Nokian tyres used to be nearly 90% winter tyres but they are trying to fix that by making summer tyres. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't get it. What does "has improved the extent of the fluctuations" mean? (I checked with a native English speaker, who didn't understand it either.) How about saying something simpler, like "the demand for Nokian tyres has previously been highly seasonal, due to 90% of their products being winter tires. However, recently the company has been able to lessen the seasonal effect by making summer tyres." Offliner (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. I fixed this except didn't quote 90% since this is just a figure of speech, exact % was not released.  Also recruited another editor to help give advice on copy editing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. The referencing looks much improved and I've made some small copyedits. The prose is not exactly compelling, but it seems okay to me. What about the lead? I'm not sure it fully summarizes the article. Are there any other outstanding GA criteria issues? Geometry guy 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The referencing is indeed much improved. The lead does need fixing.  Please read the wiki-liked guidelines for the lead above, Suomi. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, which I did not know about. Major fixing has been done to the lead.  Thank you for the suggestion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. The prose still needs some work. there are some silly errors, like "The Finnish, Swedish, and Norwegian markets contributed over 40% of Nokian's corporate net sales in 2008 with the Russian market, Nokia's largest market...", or "Forestry tyres are a key product of the subsidiary, where it is a world market leader." So "forestry tyres" is a place? Similarly, this from the lead is poorly written: "Nokian Tyres PLC ... is a Finnish based manufacturer of tyres for cars, trucks, buses, and heavy duty equipment headquartered in Nokia, Finland." So Nokian manufactures tyres for heavy duty equipment headquartered in Nokia? I don't demand "compelling prose", but I do demand clear, correct, and unambiguous prose. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A big thank you for pointing this out. Fixed this and several other similar problem wordings. Will also continue to look for more. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The citations need to be checked again. I found two different citations given the same name, " " ". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OOOOoopps! Fixed that.  A nice editor helped me name the reference to eliminate duplicates and I should have checked it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Contract manufacture of these types of heavy tyres was then undertaken by Michelin at its Polish plant in Stomil-Olsztyn from 2000 until 2005, when it started to shift contract manufacture of industrial tyres to Bridgestone's Bilbao, Spain factory ...". This makes it look like the "it" who switched production facilities was Michelin, which doesn't seem to be the case judging from the citations. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the Commercial vehicle tyres section seems to be repeating information given earlier in the article, and doesn't seem relevant to commercial tyres in any case. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing these thing out. All fixed.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Nokian Tyres (which was earlier branded as Nokia tyres ...". Is that correct? Wouldn't it have been Nokia Tyres? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Unable to locate the exact name of subsidiary (Nokia Tyres, Nokia Tires, Nokia Tyre and Rubber) but re-worded to avoid that problem. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will return to this page in a few days. See  For emergency fixing, e-mail me  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article has improved very substantially during this reassessment, to the point where I now believe it meets all of the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article now satisfies GA criteria, in my opinion. Ruslik_ Zero 18:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep article now satisfies the Good Article criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)