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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I find the article rather short. The article has a number of issues related to balance and length. In particular, it suffers from recentism, in that almost as much space is devoted to the past five years as the first 30. While I can agree that SV has had a lot of power and this can be considered the "golden age" and therefore can have more information per year than other periods, I would like to see a substantial lengthening of the pre-2005 history section. The article also tends to have a lot of "history" information mixed in with the ideology. Instead of listing the party leaders, why not just including it in the history section as prose. There should also be a section about 'organization', including such things as membership, chapters etc. Doesn't have to be long, and could include a number of current dispositions. For instance, there is in the main section no mention of who is in the party leadership, the parliamentary leader or membership figures. There are also two nice maps showing the geographical spread of the votes during the last election.

I thought this article was suppose to be about the current party, thats the main reason why i actually bothered to create the History of the Socialist Left Party page. --TIAYN (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the article should be dominated by the past, but Wikipedia has a clear approach where the past is just as important as the present. The history article is looking good, and you can get away with a shorter history section because of it. Still, it is important to discuss SV in a historical context—and no, the article is not about the 'current' party as such, but about the party (for its full history). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Working --TIAYN (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Should i expand the history section more or? --TIAYN (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

•  Done Asylum, domestic, foreign, NOK, public school and radical are all disambiguation links.
•  Done The entire second paragraph of the lead reads a bit awkward. What does "officially committed" mean? Does it mean it has official policy to follow this, but does not? What does "has met with varying support" mean? What does "reasoning behind this" refer to (behind what?) I don't know if 'education' can be called a 'principal', what SV generally wants is increased resources to the education sector.
•  Done I don't quite see the need to put socialism in quotation marks; it is a vague enough term that all you achieve is (I presume) unintentionally discrediting the party.
•  Done Ref four should be attributed to Heikki Holmås, not the website.
•  Done Again, by stating that Lysbakken believes something, you are actually again discrediting him. Instead, state that he 'states' or similar. Belief is normally something related to religion.
•  Done The quote from Lysbakken doesn't really make sense. Perhaps it is the translation; what is the original? It is often a good idea when translating quotes to include the original (in the ref or in a comment) so the accuracy of the translation can be double checked.
•  Done It seems like a lot of article space is spent on Lysbakken's personal orientation. While a brief mention of this is fine, elaboration is most appropriate on his article.
•  Done Quite often you'll begin a sentence with a noun and follow it with a comma. I don't know why you do this, as it doesn't make grammatical sense in either English nor Norwegian.
•  Done I don't know how many times Halvorsen is linked, but once is sufficient.
•  Done The 'aftermath of the 2009 election' is unnecessary dramatical. Just use 'after the 2009 election'.
•  Done Økonomi, when used in the lieu of økonomi og adminstrasjon does not translate to economics. Instead, it translates as business, management or business administration. The English term 'economics' translates to samfunnsøkonomi.
•  Done Is SV's policy regarding private schools really "believing they are of no use." I would have though there was a slightly more refined argument; I have heard arguments against private schools, and they are more complex than as so. For instance, private schools increase differences in the population, they will selectively disregard weak (and more expensive) students, thus financially skimming the market for the cheapest students to educate. Also, if private schools develop into elite schools, then there will be a financial hindrance for parents to send their students to the best schools. Please find those arguments that are presented at the core by SV.
•  Done Instead of forcing image sizes, use the syntax |upright.
•  Done The context of the caption in Halvorsen's image is out of context, and makes no sense.
•  Done The paragraph about the Klassekampen feminism survey needs to be completely rewritten. As it runs now, it makes no sense.
•  Done Throughout the article, the term "currently" is used. This should be avoided, instead using "since 2005" or whatever year is appropriate. Simiar with "recent".
•  Done Don't say 'X is leader of the Foo Ministry', say 'X is Minister of Foo'.
•  Working Avoid ending a sentence and starting the next with the same word, such as with Holand.
•  Done You've actually written that the party felt that the ethnic cleansing of Kristin Halvorsen had to stop.
•  Done Include a link to the Kosovo War; rephrase if necessary to include it. Also note that a lot of the military action was aimed at Serbia, not Kosovo.
•  Done While the events in SV about Kosovo are correct, I find the article is a bit POV in its presentation of the conflict. It was at the time very one-sided in the Norwegian press, and this article seems to represent both the view of Halvorsen and NATO. The reason is that their arguments are presented along with their alignment, while the "pacifist" side is only presented with their alignment. Surely they had some arguments to support their opinion.
•  Done Why do you keep forcing image sizes? Do you think you know better than the reader what size they want to display?
•  Done When writing only a month and year, don't put a comma in between.
•  Done Don't link to Afghanistan, link to the article on the war.
•  Done Take a look at WP:OVERLINK. In general, any one wikilink should only be done at first occurrence in the whole article.
•  Done Slogans are lower-case.
• I've lost count of how many times (often in rapid succession) the article mentions that Halvorsen is party leader.
•  Done What is a cash budget?
•  Done In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the 'parliamentary elections', it is unclear what party is being talked about.
•  Done Two of the external links are covered in the navbox.

Are you talking about the See also section?

Yes.

•  Done In both instances, 'further information' should be replaced with ((main)).

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow....--TIAYN (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History looks fine.

• I like the party-leader table; pragmatic, innovative and space-saving solution :)
• Don't underestimate Wikipedia: both Friheten and Orientering have articles, so link to them.
• I would presume SV was in favor of 'economic equality', not 'inequality'.
• 'Centre' is a disambig page, should link to centrism.
• Not "he's", but "his".
• Not 'department for', but 'ministry of'.
• I presume you're writing British English, so I converted a few American spellings.
• There were four disambiguation pages (environmental, Helga Pedersen, centre and NOK).

Congratulations with a good article. Hope to see more articles at GAN soon :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for passing my GA nom. ;P --TIAYN (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]