Wikipedia:Featured article review/Swedish language/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 07:35, 8 December 2007.

Swedish language

The article doesn't live up to the criteria as per statements of user:panda at Talk:Swedish language and user talk:panda#Fact tagging. It's full of original research, speculation and bogus claims about grammatical genders and verb endings that don't exist (as proven by panda). Please denominate it as soon as possible.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many exaggerations by Peter, once again. The article needs references for verifiability and for disputed claims brought up in the talk page. It also contains incomplete references. –panda 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend speedy close as bad-faith nomination disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is clear from the talk pages linked to above that Peter Isotalo considers the article to still be of FA quality. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend we hold it in review; it won't hurt for other knowledgeable editors to review the citation issues raised, considering the article is an older promotion and citation standards have changed. It is easy to spot statements that look like opinion and would benefit from attribution, examples:

In mass media it is no longer uncommon for journalists to speak with a distinct regional accent, but the most common pronunciation and the one perceived as the most formal is still Central Standard Swedish.
This type of classification, however, is based on a somewhat romanticized nationalist view of ethnicity and language. The idea that only rural variants of Swedish should be considered "genuine" is not generally accepted by modern scholars.

Also, the text is replete with external jumps that need to be removed, and it's not hard to spot MOS breaches, example: From 1918-1930, when Estonia ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the nomination instructions at the top of FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Swedish language}}, and post a note back to here confirming notifications. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following have been notified:

Wikiprojects:

Primary editors:

Peter Isotalo (aka Karmosin) - primary editor and the original FAC nominator
Fred J (aka User:Fred chessplayer)
Alarm
Steverapaport
Bishonen

The next three editors with the most edit counts (Wiglaf, Ruhrjung, and Johan Magnus) were not notified since they have either left Wikipedia or have not edited since 2005/2006.

Other:

Swedish Wikipedians' notice board

–panda (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close: See the talk page. The nomination illustrated bad faith. We are looking at one editor vs. about five. The one editor is extremely upset, has been unable to gain consensus at the talk page, and has made this movement. FAR will not benefit from grafting the anger and frustration of that talk page into its space. The same fights in multiple places does no one any good, and, if you look at the claims made in the nomination, they are strictly content arguments. Unless there are Swedish language speakers and scholars who have not weighed in there, there is no ability to gather more of them to weigh in here. This is an argument that is internal to the article and has nothing to do with FA standards. Essentially, panda says that the article is wrong, not that it fails FA. Geogre (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the article was "wrong", I questioned the FA status of the article due to its limited references.[1] That User:Peter Isotalo then nominated it as a bad faith nomination doesn't change that the article needs more references and, as it now stands, could benefit from an FA review. –panda (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you acting surprised, panda? You recommended this course of action twice at talk:Swedish language due to your disagreements with me over the article contents and its references. Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm ... I'm wondering why Peter thinks I'm acting surprised. Please stop being disruptive and help work on the article's FA status instead of being angry at me. As stated previously, that you made the original nomination because you were angry doesn't change that it could benefit from an FA review. –panda (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - panda, considering the amount of horse carcass beating that you've engaged in over the past week or so, could you at least consider toning down your accusatory tone? Peter ^Isotalo 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I've already written many times to you, consider taking your comments and applying them to yourself. –panda (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination was largely done out of frustration with panda's behavior and belligerent approach to article improvement. While there are occasional hints of reason in some of the pointers, it is very difficult to sort out these nuggets of valid criticism out from the overwhelming amount of pure argumentativeness and bluster about breeching policy the moment it's cited. Peter ^Isotalo 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: External jumps. Peter has now reverted the removal of external jumps and questions why external jumps should be removed. –panda (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This is completely pointless since we're already at a "no, you're a towel"-level of argument as soon as any disagreement between myself and panda arises. This has to be worked out elsewhere before a FAR will be beneficial. Peter ^Isotalo 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is not dispute resolution. Closing. Marskell (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.