Talk:Jyväskylä

Jyväskylä was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 14, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Finland High‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photos

Could someone please add more pictures here? At least a photo on the Geography section should be added - a photo with lakes, forests and hills.--Reskelinen (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntalehti 2004:15

Hi! I've tried to find the cited source but I did not succeeded. I found the site [1]. However, an offered pdf is not downloadable. Can anybody proove that the statement in the article is true? My Finnish language abilities are limited. Thanks! Miraceti 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was true. Alas the study caused the town to become worse:

As the study had for example, how much is given out to people from social office as a factor, town started to give less (and is not anymore worst in the study but): Now the disabled go without free transport, thefts have doubled in a year (from 2005 yo 2006) etc. (nov 2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.237.90.72 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i hope the japanese from tokyo university which decided to move stuff here did not look at wikipedia before their decision as i was the one who wrote known for the it program.. the quality is the about same in finland, in all the unis, alas, worse than in other countries since 1990 or so, politicians do not care for education here anymore, want everyone to be a plumber and serve the swedish overlords (sept08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.237.90.72 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an assessment (WP Finland)

This article could be rated as B-class. First however, the web citations should be formatted to full. See Template:Cite web. Peltimikko (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the web citations and made a number of smaller changes. Could be rated to B-class now? How about other fellow wikipedians, do you agree with the rating?--Reskelinen (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cities

Importance assessment

HIGH? Jyväskylä is the capital of Central Finland. In Addition the city hosts the Rally Finland, part of the World Rally Championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskelinen (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Scale

B? What do you think?--Reskelinen (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In-wiki links

There is too much red links --194.137.195.6 (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jyväskylä/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 07:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to review this article. I will read through it carefully and provide some initial feedback on the article in the next few days. Thanks in advance to the nominator. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 07:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed an initial readthrough of the article. Currently, the article falls short of meeting the GA criteria. One option is to leave this review open for seven days and work very hard on the feedback below; after that, we can evaluate it again. The other option is to close the review for now, work on the article at a leisurely pace, then to nominate it again. That is your decision. Here is some initial feedback.

Prose

The grammar needs a bit of work, but we can do that when the rest of the problems are cleaned up. A bigger problem is that there are some very short sections or paragraphs. If those are merged or reorganized, I think that the flow of the article will improve. One example is the Name section. That could be included in the History section, I think.

Images

I checked each image in the article. Most are okay as far as copyright. There is one image, the first image of the university, where the copyright description is not clear to me. Another image, the one of the Neito statue, appears to be under a deletion discussion. In general, I think that there are too many images in the article. MOS:IMAGELOCATION advises not to sandwich text in between two images. That is probably beyond the scope of the GA criteria, but I think your article will read more easily if it is less cluttered.

Lead

Two of the paragraphs in the lead are underdeveloped. You might consider adding some brief economy information, since that's a fairly substantial section of the body.

References

There are large sections of text that appear unsourced or poorly sourced. In several places, there are subjective assertions or claims of superiority (best, excellent, remarkable, biggest); those statements could be challenged and really need strong references. In the first paragraph of the Economy section, I can't find where the reference mentions IT businesses being tempted to the city. Another example is the mention of the four immigrant groups in the Nationalities section; there are only three listed in the source.

Lists

In the Sports, Education and Culture sections, there are bulleted lists that might be better presented in prose (see WP:L). The non-notable sports teams can be removed from the list before converting it to a paragraph.

I have some minor feedback to add once these major issues are addressed. Thank you for the work that you have already completed on this one. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 06:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination now due to lack of response to feedback. It can be renominated if the nominator becomes active again.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The grammar needs work. Articles (especially the) are missing before several nouns.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Too many images, but I don't think it violates WP:LAYOUT specifically.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Should add citations for assertions like biggest, excellent, best.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	May reconsider which athletic teams are notable enough for list inclusion.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See review feedback for two concerns.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	No response to review in ten days. May be renominated if reviewer returns.

Thank you for the opportunity to review material that was new to me. While the article doesn't meet the criteria right now, the "building blocks" are there for a future nomination. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 17:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jyväskylä. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625001110/http://www.potsdam.de/cms/ziel/27222/DE/ to http://www.potsdam.de/cms/ziel/27222/DE/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jyväskylä. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Name

The latin Name "Granivicus" is mentioned, but without further mentioning it. Where is it as a city mentioned in Latin records? A very quick research did not help a lot (possibly this Finnish link? https://keskustelu.suomi24.fi/t/1201313/finlandia-kummajainen) Hi.ro (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

In languages: "The most widely spoken foreign languages" is a little misleading. More accurate would be "most common first/mother languages". I don't know where to source the information regarding fluency in second or third languages, but this does not do justice to how easy it is to navigate life there in English vs. Russian as "the most widely spoken foreign language". 85.76.111.123 (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]