Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) This article has a few issues that need to be addressed before I can pass the article as swept:

• Overall the article is well written, clear, and well-sourced. It's one of the few articles I've reviewed that hasn't degraded significantly over the years after being passed, so kudos to the authors. I've done some minor reworking to the lead, moving some facts about so that the details about his personal life are a less jarring transition.
• One of the issues I've found is that the article is geared towards someone who understands Swedish politics. Giving you a hint here: I don't understand it, and I'm sure 90% of readers don't. Therefor, some extra description would be great. For example, the lead gives election results in 2002 as "disastrous", which seems like unncessary hyperbole (not least because 'disastrous' is POV.) Later in the article body it says "Following the loss in the Swedish general election of 2002, Lundgren was forced to resign his position as leader of the Moderate Party." But we don't know anything about what happened in the general election. Tell us more! Details are cheap and should be easy to add and source!
• The later sections are light on content; there are lots of one or two-line paragraphs which actually aren't real paragraphs (at minimum, three sentences are required.) These need to be cut, merged, or (considering the length of the article) expanded.
• Now, with eyes to the fact that this is a BLP: why is there a section marked "Smear campaigns against Reinfeldt"? Surely those details can be merged into the relevant election section above? I feel like this information could be better summarized and moved into the above election section; the details can go to the election subpage. I also removed a "controversy" section, mostly because those kinds of sections are POV warrior magnets and most of it was trivial or entirely unsourced.
• "Public perception" needs updating; it's more than a year out of date.

I'm giving a week (longer if improvements are being made) for the above issues to be addressed. Please appraise me of progress here in this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'll try to address your concerns in the upcoming days. Theleftorium 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have addressed a few of your concerns now and will work on the rest soon. I'd appreciate some more comments though (especially on the parts that are hard to understand), if you have time to write them down. :) Theleftorium 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What parts do you find confusing? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant I'd like to get some more examples of parts of the article you find confusing. Theleftorium 15:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ah, right then. Parts that don't make much sense to the non-initiated:
    • "Reinfeldt joined the Moderate Youth League"... who are? We really shouldn't force readers to click away to internal links just to find out what something is unless it's absolutely necessary; it interrupts reading and flow. Same thing with "was elected a member of the Riksdag".
    • "He ousted the former chairman, Ulf Kristersson at the controversial congress known as The Battle of Lycksele, gathering 58 of the delegates votes with Kristersson gathering 55 votes." What made this congress controversial? That it caused some divisions is made clear, but the reasons are not explained.
    • "The Moderate Party has a strong pro-European Union policy stance—including support for exchanging the Swedish krona for the euro—and also supports Sweden joining NATO. Reinfeldt has also opposed a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying that the democratically elected Iraqi government should have the last say on the issue." is entirely unsourced

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks. I'll work on these sometime this week. Theleftorium 15:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just letting you know that I currently have a high fever and that's why I haven't had time to work on the article. I'll try to address your concerns tomorrow or early next week. Theleftorium 17:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In regards to the message you left on my talk page—if it's unsourced, burn with fire! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Done! :) I think I've gotten everything, but I'll read through the article later today just to be sure. Theleftorium 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David -- I actually have one general question in regards to your first statement, that articles degrade over the years. I agree they do, but doesn't the GA template say "This article or an earlier version is considered GA"? And isn't there (in best case) a link to that earlier version of the article? Why, then, must articles be removed from GA when an earlier version is indeed a full worthy GA? In worst case, just revert the article to that earlier GA version; or otherwise make a review of the article as it once was.

I think it is bad practice and against the spirit of Wikipedia if one must act like a hawk over ones GA and FA articles and remove every edit that is not 100% up to standard and referenced and NPOV, including most edit from IP addresses.

Fred-J 13:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except there's no guarantee that the GA version meets criteria; remember, A) the articles being swept are from 2007 and earlier, and standards have risen since then, and B) who's to say the article wasn't poorly reviewed in the first place? In the GA version of this article, for example, the reviewer apparently didn't notice a ((cn)) tag—that's grounds for a quickfail, for instance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The above issues I've pointed out have been fixed, and I don't see anything else leaping out, so I will pass. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]