Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/GA2

GA Review 2

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I will start a review here. It will take some time, and I will allow more time than usual for the process to run its course. The article has a number of problems that would normally lead it to fail a GA review, but we will see whether there are enough editors around willing to make changes. This is an article about a controversial political party, so its editing and improvement will take care and, doubtless, some discussion.

Main areas to address:

• I have commenced an extensive copyedit to improve the English expression, but there are some areas where I have been unsure as to what was intended to be said. I may raise some of these later in the review process.
• The article appears to have improved over earlier versions, but there are still some POV issues that relate mainly to immigration, and to accurately characterising the party's politics. I have tagged a couple of points where we need a party source to which we can attribute certain policy statements. These cases are exceptions to the more general rule, where we should avoid party sources in favour of third-party statements to support claims in the article.
• Some good use has been made of scholarly articles, but i still think they should be relied upon to a greater degree. Where a scholarly article explains something that has also appeared in a newspaper article, consider omitting the news source and inserting the scholarly source instead.
• Bearing in mind this is the English wikipedia, and that there is considerable coverage of Progress Party in English language sources particularly at the time of Norwegian elections, please try and substitute reliable English language news sources in place of Norwegian language ones where possible (see WP:NONENG). I found quite a few articles just by typing "progress party norway" into Google news archive search. I'm not suggesting everything should be changed - it would not surprise me if there is little English language coverage of the internal party splits that occurred away from election times, for example.

When I search Google News, it seems that local American newspapers are the most available news sources that can be found for many related things. Could these be used, or are they not appropriate (they seem to be reliable, and often use work of the Associated Press etc.)? I'll anyway try to find and use the most established publishers at first though of course. I can't seem to find any sources which include larger portions of the party's history, so I think news sources are the only English-speaking ones to be found, online at least. -TheG (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now tidied up all the references, as well as added some English-speaking ones. I find it difficult to add more English sources, as they mostly just have very short and superficial information about the party. I would also like to note that the article about the Socialist Left Party (Norway) was not long ago passed as a GA, even though it almost exclusively include Norwegian news sources, most of them not even being online sources (which almost all of the PP-sources are). -TheG (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Socialist Left article yet - but the basic principle is don't use foreign language sources where English language sources are available. If English language ones aren't available, then there's no issue. The article looks significantly better. I will come back to it probably in a couple of days to read right through once again. Thanks for your work Gabagool. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I will make other comments in coming days. Let's see how this goes. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Mindful of this article's history, I have notified all recent contributors to it. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, hamiltonstone. I'm one of the recent editors you notified. I am no expert on this topic, but I am politically interested, non-Norwegian (which is negative for some things, and positive for others), have lived in Norway for a couple of years, and read Norwegian. Therefore, I'm happy to contribute, though I would probably look to you to point out specific areas where I would be most useful. Let me know what areas you're looking for help in. Cheers, AshleyMorton (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can help with referencing, but don't know what else i can do. --TIAYN (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a bit short, and tells too little about the party's history. Perhaps you (TIAYN) could help? --Eisfbnore (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to work on how to structure references Gabagool. On another note, I'll see what I can do about the lead. --TIAYN (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress seems to have stalled somewhat. There are still passages marked with 'citation needed' tags. There appears to be no increased reliance on Anniken Hagelund - someone needs to re-read Hagelund (as the only cited peer-reviewed scholarly work) and use it to support as much as possible of the existing text and/or revise the text to reflect Hagelund's assessment (I don't have a view - i haven't read the chapter myself). The lead needs some expansion. Does anyone want to do these things in the next week? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now fixed all citation needed tags. -TheG (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I can't read Norwegian, so I'm not sure, but one of the sources you've inserted looks like it is a blog, which wouldn't be a reliable source. Can you check? That still leaves the other issues. Thanks for making progress. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (although the previous was an authorative blog).. -TheG (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now included more content from the Hagelund text. I think I got the most relevant content for use in this article. -TheG (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)