Wikipedia:Peer review/Norwegian parliamentary election, 2009/archive1
Norwegian parliamentary election, 2009 edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i've used a lot of time on it, and want it to reach GA status. The most important for me is, what would it take to get this up to Good Article status? --TIAYN (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with GA in mind.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the voter turnout in the previous election is only in the lead, for example. I think the voter turnout for this election is more important for inclusion in the lead.
- As a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. There are eight sections on the campaigns of different parties, but not all of the parties themselves are even mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- In the infobox, I would leave the "Leader since" fields blank rather than use "?". The field will not show up that way, which looks better than three question marks (plus once you find out the dates, they can be added)
- Avoid unnecessary repetition - for example in the Proportional representation system section, both paragraphs mention the 19 counties as electoral districts.
- I would also try to provide context to the reader more. For example, I would briefly discuss the political situation before the election - explain the ruling Red-Green coalition, etc. Another place where context could be added is the Red-Green coalition government would face the same problems as Kjell Magne Bondevik's second coalition government. I would add the years for this for those not familiar with Norwegian politics (yes, it is linked).
- The article needs a copyedit - for example the second sentence here The party managed to gather 949,060 votes, which was 35.4% of the popular vote. An increase of 2.7% and additional 3 new seats in parliament. is a fragment (it has no verb). This could be fixed as something like ...35.4% of the popular vote, which was an increase of 2.7% and resulted in an additional 3 new seats in parliament.
- I would put this later in the article - does a sentence about polls done two months after the election really belong in the campaign section (for Labour)? In an opinion poll done for November, two months after the election, all parties continued to decrease, leading many to speculate that the Red-Green Coalition is "slipping".[22]
- While it generally seems very well referenced, the ref for the table at the end needs to be clearer.
- Since there are sections for the top eight parties in terms of votes received, could there also be one section for all the other parties that stood in the election? Even if it was just "X, Y and Z were in a national election for the first time and each received less than 200 votes" I think it would be helpful.
- Otherwise I think this look pretty good and fairly close to ready for GAN.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)