Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Finns/1

Finns

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. The up-to-date comments all raise GA issues with this article which have not been addressed. Geometry guy 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too short lead. The "Swedish-speaking Finns" is tagged with {{contradicts}}. BorgQueen (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed the {{contradicts}} tag, as I fail to see any contradiction here. Also expanded the lead to two paragraphs, as required by the GA guide. Martintg (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Lead still does not comply with WP: LEAD; adding a sentence to serve as a second paragraph does nothing to satisfy the conditions. Major sections (e.g. Etymology, History, Genetics and Theories of the origin of Finns) have no representation. An article this size should have a lead with two or three substantial paragraphs. Article is poorly written (both in style and grammar), Theories of the origin of Finns section has no references and existing references are not properly formatted. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the sections you mentioned are now mentioned in the lead section now. The article is not poorly written, although the sentences in the Definition-section are short due to the fact that the article refers to several main articles on specific groups. The contradict-tag was placed by the person who started this reassesment. To my view, there is no contradiction between Finns and Swedish people. Such disagreement would, should one exist, not burden this article but the article Swedish people which suffers badly from the lack of proper references. I added references to the section "Theories of the origin of Finns" which has lacked them. Now, there should not be any unaddressed points. --MPorciusCato (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just to set the record straight; User:Vuo placed the {{contradicts}} tag, not me. See this diff. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for wrongly blaming you. BTW, are you satisfied with the lead section? --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lead looks quite okay now, in my view. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article looks fine in its current state, it looks like all problems have been addressed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lead is indeed fixed, but article is poorly written per my previous assertion. For example, weasel words include "In some texts", "there are ... some people who", "used in a few written texts", "A few studies", etc. WP:MOS violations abound, e.g. use of "Interestingly", WP:NOR, e.g. "is a tricky matter" and that's to say nothing of the prose quality and grammar errors (editors really need to read the Comma (punctuation) article). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ The Swedish-speaking Finns section seems to contradict itself; its says most Finland Swedes consider themselves Finns (which isn't to be backed up by the reference), then says 82% say they have their own culture and are merely Finnish citizens. Narayanese (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction fixed now Narayanese (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the references, they all seem reliable (its publications and goverment sites), except perhaps number one (uses language to determine ethic group). The bits about Finland Swedes (sections Swedish-speaking Finns and Terminology) are largely backed up by references in the Swedish-speaking Finns article, and the Genetics of the Swedish-speaking Finns section explains why the Finland Swedes are included in the infobox. However, ~~the bits about Wiik needs a reference (the one ref in there doesn't mention Wiik)~~, and the ref for the number of Finns in Sweden is a political motion, it doesn't even mention a number! (another of the sources in the Finns article says over 450,000). Also, Subdivisions section lack refernces entirely. Narayanese (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The Subdivisions section is not fully referenced, and is somewhat poorly written. Narayanese (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The terminology section needs generic references to support its general approach. The genetics section is very underreferenced, given its controversial title (the title could perhaps be changed). The references are badly formatted: e.g., source information should be provided, not just a weblink. Geometry guy 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist in its present form. Although the article is basically sound and has the makings of a GA, there are quite a few issues to be addressed before this is GA standard. It contains significant gaps in its referencing (particularly the Terminology and Subdivisions sections), prose issues, and a number of MoS violations. To take two examples, uncited factual statements include "The Finnish speakers form the large majority of Finns.", and unencylopedic (speculative) prose includes "As the meanings of these terms have changed in time, these terms may well be used with other meanings than those given above, particularly in foreign and older works." I fixed some of the MoS bits though ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]