Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of Stortinget 2001-2005/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 20:51, 23 February 2008.

List of members of Stortinget 2001-2005

This is another "version" of List of members of Stortinget 2005-2009, whose nomination ended with an unanimous promotion to featured status after some issues had been adressed. To summarize it meets FL criteria 1a, b, c, d, e, f, 2a, b, c and 3. Punkmorten (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

a) Few manual of style issues...
- Title really ought to be en-dash rather than hypenated, and most year range articles drop the century on the second year unless it crosses a century boundary so I'd expect to see "List of members of Stortinget 2001–05".
- "September 10 2001."- needs comma for WP:DATE consistency throughout the article.
- "Norwegian parliamentary election, 2001 of September 10 2001." - use a piped link on the election link to drop the first 2001, avoid repeating the year.
- "4 %" - why the space?
- " 8 seats " - eight (words for numbers below 10).
- "37,5 %" - "37.5%".
b) Is ref [1] supposed to reference all of the Voting section? If so then move it to the end of the paragraphs, if not then more citation is required.
c) " candicates " - typo.
d) "This has happened several times in Norwegian history." - evidence?
e) "(see women in politics)." - yuck, wikilinks are designed to avoid this. Either put it in a See also section or intelligently link it into the prose.
f) I'm no expert so I need to understand more clearly what a leveling seat is.
g) I think for candidates with comments you should have a citation.
i) References are strange mix of bullets, indented bullets and numbers.
j) The category is "Members of the Storting", the title is "members of Stortinget"... my Norwegian is non-existent but I just wondered over the discrepancy?

So I must oppose for now, but please feel free to drop me a line to discuss these further or if you wish me to re-review at a later date. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]

a)
- en-dash I agree with, 2001–05 doesn't really look good, but if you say so...
- re: the rest of the comments: {{sofixit}}. I don't WP:OWN the page.
b) done (moved it to the end of the paragraphs)
c) {{sofixit}} (I did)
d) tried to rewrite
e) done
f) the term is linked, though.
g) ok.
i) better now.
j) it's called Stortinget in Norwegian. -et is the definite article. Its English article refers to it as "The Storting". Then you have the parliament of Sweden, but Althing - there is little consistency across Wikipedia. What do you prefer?
- Just because there's little consistency, it doesn't mean we can't try to get this page correct. I'm no expert and my preference ought not be part of it, it's whichever title correctly describes the article and if this is the right one then that's just fine, I was curious about the discrepancy, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I now see that http://www.stortinget.no/english/index.html says "Welcome to the Storting". So the title should be changed to ...the Storting..., I guess. Punkmorten (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize: The main remaining question is the page title. Punkmorten (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I guess I could {{sofixit}} but I'm busy reviewing a number of articles as well as working on ones that particularly interest me which have enough things that need fixing. As someone nominating an FLC, it's usually good form to conduct the corrections as suggested rather than just tell me to do the corrections myself (after it took a good 30 mins to read through the article)... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I understand, altough it probably took you longer to type "4 %" - why the space? than for me to correct it.. But as of my writing I had alread conducted the corrections - in a satisfactory manner I hope. Punkmorten (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it's worth noting that when I proof read it's a real pain to keep editing sections, previewing, saving and getting back into the flow again. Plus, when I review I'd like people to understand what I believe is wrong rather than just change it for them, so that next time the get to FLC, the same errors are not in evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I am aware you may have the FLC on your watchlist, I just notified you of my comments for politeness. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Finally, I'll go with whatever the manual of style suggests for the title, both in year range and hyphen or en-dash. This is supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia and if we have a MOS, we should stick to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, but I also had the question of Stortinget/Storting in mind, see above. Punkmorten (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So you choose the date format, whether you want to comply with WP:DASH and the Storting sounds good to me... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments - I have a couple of minor concerns outstanding...
- a) Not essential but I'd write stubs for the two members who don't have articles.
- b) Is it worth wikilinking the constituencies?
- c) Again may be my lack of understanding of Norwegian names but Karita Bekkemellem Orheim sorts by Bekkemellem not Orheim, Magnhild Meltveit Kleppa by Meltveit not Kleppa, May-Helen Molvær Grimstad by Molvær, not Grimstad.
- d) What does "met in her place" mean?
Very nearly ready to support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks
- a) done - except for Kvakkestad whose bio was not available at the moment
- b) I don't know... they could be linked once, but then that link won't always show up if you sort the columns by party or name. On the other hand, if all instances of the constituency are linked, that would be redundant...
- c) fixed two of them, but I think Karita Bekkemellem Orheim should sort by Bekkemellem. Reason: She was born Karita Bekkemellem, then married Karita Bekkemellem Orheim but has now reverted to just Karita Bekkemellem.
- d) to "meet" is to be present in a parliament session. When someone is away, the deputy meets in place of that person. Could be reworded?
Punkmorten (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.
- a) cool, not a major worry.
- b) since the list is sortable I would link them all. I know there's an issue of redundancy as you point out but in general, sortable lists with repeated wikilinking is fine (in my opinion)!
- c) I'll take your word for it!
- d) Yes, I think a footnote or something similar for the non-expert (like me) if you don't mind.
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.