Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to go ahead and quick-fail this, for three reasons:

There has been much edit-warring and in-fighting since the nomination; the article clearly doesn't have the stability required of a GA nominee.
There are clear cases of POV, to which I will return later.
It desperately needs a thorough copy-edit.

As a courtesy, however, I will list some of the cases of poor language that need to be corrected. Please do not take this as a complete copy-edit; the article still needs a thorough assessment of language, grammar, punctuation etc.

only abrupted by
elected as chairman - no "as"
prominent leader - the party leader is inherently prominent
next 1981 parliamentary election - should probably be "next parliamentary election, in 1981,"
but was however
as they came in between, or rather beyond, the two main power blocks - vague
This was largely as immigration was
In 1989, the party followed
its first mayor by Håkon Rege
These events has been seen
tried to organise like a political party
This regain of voters is largely said to have been as a result of
the first mayor being directly elected by an election from the party
the most markant immigration opponents - "markant" is not an English word
attempts of opposition
more national conservative anti-immigration - what does this mean?
anyways - not standard English
has been compared politically with that which happened with
succeeded to elect the mayor
has been noted for having among the most loyal voters
Most of these last losses
the Progress Party also does not want to support a coalition of which they aren't a part of
been influxed with
in regards to health and care for the elderly
leads to a power distribution in society
the state should only carry out tasks such as private persons can not resolve themselves
the Competition Authority - what is this? If it is an official body, which is implied by the capitalisation, it needs to be either wikilinked or explained
claims the individual is, together with the family and the right to own private property, a fundamental of society
is traditionally, and has a history, of being portrayed
election, the party chairman Siv Jensen claimed - no article before "party chairman" (which should probably also be capitalised)
not taking the national conservative policies in account
distance [them]selves with the values they stand for

More generally:

Refs should go after punctuation marks
The word "however" needs commas

As for the POV, I will list some of the worst cases, plus things that just seem a bit inaccurate:

"other parties have ostracized it from mainstream politics" - this comes too soon in the lead - before anything about history or program. Also, "ostracized" is not quite accurate, since other parties do cooperate with them on specific issues, while refusing to form government with them. The word seems a bit POV.
"Founding and early years" the last paragraph here presents a confusing jump in time. Worse than that, however, it is a clear case of novel synthesis; the stories of the decay of the Norwegian welfare state are not related to the Progress Party in any of the sources presented - that connection is made by the editor. Furthermore, the word "shockingly" is inherently POV, it doesn't help that it's directly followed by a reference.
"extreme libertarians"[19], "ultra-libertarians"[20] or "neoliberalists"[14] - the first two characterisations come from people within the current party establishment, only the last one is used by neutral sources, and can truly be considered NPOV. Still, "extreme libertarians" is used throughout the rest of the section, indicating POV on the part of the writer.
The source doesn't say that the unclear stance on EU hurt the party, but rather that the EU debate took focus away from the party's stronger issues.
"either bowing under to the majority of the party and parliamentary group, or find something else to do" - too informal language, and a literal translation of the Norwegian source.
"informal website poll" - this is use of an unreliable source.
The later part of the party history is pretty much just an enumeration of the party's electoral success. It seems strange that there is no mention e.g. of the Terje Søviknes affair; this seems like a whitewash.
"the two other non-socialist parliamentary parties" - this is not quite accurate, the Centre Party does not define itself as socialist, and the Labour Party calls itself social democratic.
"Society and economy" - this section reads mostly like a party program.

The article is quite comprehensive, and has a good amount of sources. There is no reason why it shouldn't become a GA in the long run, if the issues with the language and the POV are resolved. Lampman (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]