Talk:Ingeborg Steinholt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly someone I was expecting to come across at GAN (or have even heard of before), but that is no problem. Wikipedia is best at the more obscure things, after all. Some comments:

The articles should also be tagged with the wikiprojects Biography (including |BLP=yes), Norway and Politics. Done
Not all the capitalization is completely correct, but I've fixed some of it up. In general, a board is not capitalized unless referring to specific board, so "County Board of Directors" is not capitalized (because that is just a common noun, there are multiple of them), but "Nordland County Board" would be capitalized, because there is only a single one. Also, a party does not have a board of directors (only companies and some institutions do, NGOs are generally referred to simply as boards). Done
Don't repeat wikilinks a few sentences down (see WP:OVERLINK) Done
There are a few preposition errors. For instance, it should be "on" a given date, but "in" a month or year. Done
Stick in a comma for each three decimal places in large numbers. Done
What does "she became the second candidate..." mean? Done
I piped petroleum to petroleum industry, since that is a more to-the-point article. Done
Link to Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, not NRK Done
Don't spell out currencies, but use their ISO-code (i.e. NOK for Norway). Link the first one to Norwegian krone. Done
Keep in mind that in English, a comma is used a spacer and the period for decimals (opposite of in Norwegian and most of Europe) Done
Dropout leads to a disambiguation page, instead link to "Dropping out". Done
You can't use a semicolon as a link between "says" and the quote; either use a colon, a comma or the word "that". Done
I removed the commented-out external links, since they were not appropriate. Done
"Stating" is more formal and slightly more encyclopedic than "saying". At minimum try to vary between the two. Avoid "claimed", since there is a smell of disbelief in it (no-one knows what would happen if she was elected, but there is no reason to discredit her by using the word "claim", let the reader themselves determine her credibility) Done
There are number of Norwegianism around the text. I've tried to clean up those I saw, but I may have been influenced by them myself, having grown up in Norway too. Done
Red–Green Coalition need to be dab-lined to (Norway). Done
Regjeringen.no as publisher should be Government.no, which has its own article on Wikipedia. Done

Okay, I think I've found most of the stuff. I left a little for you to clean up, then I'll pass it as a good article. Turns out I almost know her—we have three friends in common on Facebook ;) Nice to see good work on this sort of marginal article, they are often a lot easier to work with. Just look at the mess the Thorbjørn Jagland article ended up at after four people tried to copyedit it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some comments as well. First, some comments on the article.

Nursing studies/work as well as birth place are only mentioned in the lead and infobox, not in the article as it should be, and furthermore lacks referencing.

Done

I'd not say that "She was able to gather 2,956 of the popular vote", but rather that the party was able.

Done

I'd call it "national board", not "country board".

Done

Is "1,829 of the popular vote" a valid expression?

Yes it is?

"televised debate" is probably wrong - it seems to have been a nettmøte, an interactive questioning session on the Internet

Done

Is ref 8 a primary source? Maybe a primary source is ok in this context?

Second, some questions about

I think the article is short on what she has actually done in her two years as a county councilwoman, save for one debate with Odd Eriksen.

Not done

This is less important: has she been a member of other organizations? I believe multiple membership is usual for politicians of her kind. Maybe Palestinakomiteen? Nei til EU? Environmental organizations? Folkeaksjonen oljefritt Lofoten, Vesterålen og Senja?

Not done

Can't find any information claiming it.

To sum up, even when the questions regarding the article's state are resolved, which I think they will be, I think this should have a little more substance before it can be called a Good Article. I don't know if it's considered good etiquette to second-guess the reviewer's statement like that, but... Geschichte (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte has some good advice here, so please follow up on it. There seems to be ample media coverage about her, including several from December 2009 (mostly to do with Copenhagen) so there is probably more to build on. I would say ref 8 is okay, because all the claims are simply her opinions on political matters. Consider yourself honored that in the immense backlog of GA reviews, your article get feedback from two reviewers. The GA process is not perfect, and it is understood that GA articles have a certain amount of flaws when they are passed, so additional comments are always welcome. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it, may take some time! --TIAYN (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, can't seem to find any information about her and the conference in Copenhagen.. Do you have a link to the source? But i searched through ATekst (Archive Search) and found a few more notable references. --TIAYN (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on Copenhagen either, I must have mixed it up with the Obama visit. To clarify concerning the nettmøte: this is a situation where a primary source is acceptable; however, just because a primary source is reproduced verbatim by a secondary source, does not mean that it is a secondary source. If a journalist took her answered and made an article about it, then it would be a secondary source. Primary sources are not banned from Wikipedia, but we have to be very careful to not synthesize anything from them. As mentioned above, in this case it is okay to use them, because all you are doing is stating her opinions in matters. As for "more substance" (from Geschichte), I would tend to say that this is all encyclopedic information available from reliable secondary sources, and therefore no more can be added. I would, however, think that this issue would hinder the article from reaching FA, should that be attempted. Some more comments:

If you are going to use the American dating system, there has to be a comma after the year (unless there is a period). Done
Red Youth is overlinked. Done
Never use "currently" or "presently", since the document may be unedited for a long time or copied to another web site that does not update the text. Done
Sentences like " While at the same time, having residence in both Oslo and Sandessjøen." need additional verbs. Done
By "She retains a residence both in Oslo and Sandnessjøen", i presume she has a hybel in Oslo and lives and is registered with her parents in Sandnessjøen?

There are quite a number of excessive commas that slow down the reader. Done
I was of the impression that Red described themselves as socialist, not left-winged. Done

I don't quite see why '"The heart is located on the left, the appendix to the right"' needs to be included. This is mere rhetoric and lacks any political impact. I have taken the liberty to remove the quote, and replace it with something meaningful (environmental issues). Done
Remember significant digits when mentioning results (there has to be 3.0% for there to be a 0.9% increase). Done
By "She became the second member from Red", do you mean in the election, or of all time? Done
I'm not quite sure where the national government is involved in the budget cut for Alstadhaug. According to the source, they managed this all by themselves. Also, cuts were to the municipal operations amongst youth, not NGOs (as the article implies). Done
The way it looked before, she only felt the matter of education during the web meeting

Which city council? The council in Alstadhaug, where she is not a member, would not be a city council, but a municipal council. The one in Oslo? Whereever, state it. Done
Concerning the offline ref 13 (that I am too lazy to look up in Atext myself), does it really say waste (avfall) or pollution (utslipp or forurensning). The former sounds weird. Done
Disambiguate "municipalities" to "municipalities of Norway". Done

Still on hold. I've fixed some of the stuff above, and left the rest to you. Sorry, but I forgot to remember which ones I've done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its okay! :D --TIAYN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To take your three last comments in chronological order: 1) That would be OR, so don't worry, I guess I was just thinking aloud. 2) Socialist is pretty all-encompassing, after all, in Norway the Labour Party is considered socialist, so Red is in many ways just trying to be more open (and avoid the often negatively associated word "communist"). 3) I fixed it. Therefore: congratulations with a good article. I don't have any more comments, although Geschichte might. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]