Talk:Nokian Tyres/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

General comments: The organization of this article is rather strange and not quite linear. Ex. the history section comes first, but then down near the end there's another history section. (The history of the name section should be merged into/become a subsection of the overall History section.) If there is only a single sentence or a single paragraph about a topic, it does not need to be a section all by itself. Generally speaking, the article just has way too many sections, full stop.

Also, is the full name of the company Nokian Tyres plc or Nokian Tyres PLC? In my experience, the PLC is usually capitalized, but maybe that's one of those silly American things...

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead is much too short: it needs to summarize the main points of the article. Additionally there should be no references in the lead because all information in the lead should be discussed elsewhere. See also: WP:LEAD  Done
   Many extremely short paragraphs (one or two sentences) that need to be either expanded or combined into longer paragraphs  Done
   Several extremely short sections (one or two sentences; a single paragraph) that need to be either expanded or combined into larger paragraphs.  Done
   A number of ambiguous statements, listed below.  Done
   NEW: Lacks wikilinks in the new/modified sections.  Done

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Reference 30 (Business Week profile) returned a search results page with no results. Reference 39 (Executive Profile) did the same.  Done

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some sections are missing references entirely (ex. first paragraph in "history of the... name").  Done
   Just about half of the references are from the Nokian website/press releases/materials, which is as biased a source as it gets. This needs to be counter balanced by less-biased sources.  Done

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Many subjects are briefly touched upon, but not in enough depth. "Financial profile" has two sentences about profits -- one ambiguous (see comment below), and a statement of last year's profits. Then it goes on to talk about management. Never mind the fact that the tiny paragraph isn't long enough to support its own section, but this needs some serious expansion. Some ideas might be -- what is the most profitable product? time of year? are labor disputes frequent? what is their average fiscal growth? how have they been effected by the economic downturn? have there been layoffs? and so on. (Not being familiar with the topic outright I cannot suggest anything specific.)  Done

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Consider floating the map left so it is not "bumped" by the infobox.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am putting the article temporarily on hold. If the editors of the article believe they can address these concerns in the period of 1 week (7 days; by 14 December 2009), then the article will remain on hold until that time. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise:

• I am confused by the sentence: "Nokian Tyre has achieved the highest profit in the tire industry worldwide." What exactly are the constraints of this statement? Were these profits in the past year, in the past decade, for all time? Is it comparing the lifetime profits of a company like Nokian which has been around for 100+ years to a little mom-n-pop shop that's been around for six months?  Done
• The headings in the "factories" section should just be completely removed. There is but a paragraph about each factory, and a reader does not need big bold letters telling them what the paragraph is about. (If it were three, four paragraphs, sure; one? no.)  Done
• Consider general headings for the product section instead of the products themselves -- ex. "commercial vehicle tires" and "passenger car tires" and "other products". This will allow for the absorption of the microsections and microparagraphs currently floating about the section.  Done
• "The first factory was built in 1904 with a new factory built in 1945." Does this mean there are two factories in Nokia? Or was one torn down and the other built in its place? Or something else? Ambiguous.  Done
• "In 1871, Idestam, with the help of his close friend statesman Leo Mechelin, renamed and transformed his firm into a share company, thereby founding the Nokia Company." What firm? There was no mention of a firm previously, just two mills. A "firm" is an economic entity like an incorporated business, at least in my understanding.  Done
• Suomen Gummitehdas Oy (Finnish Rubber Works) only needs to be translated once. I think it's done so two or three times.  Done
• "Eventually the Nokian Tyre name was coined." 'Eventually' in this case is a weasel word.. Be specific.  Done
• The history section should be reordered to follow a more linear format (first this happened, then this, then this, &tc.) For example, the bike tires talks about the 2004 selling of the bike tire business, then the history of the production of the tires (started in 1974). The whole section should read more like -- first the company sold this; then they expanded to sell this other product and named that part of the company something; then they expanded to sell something else; then this part of the company was sold off... a linear progression.  Done

--Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-revew: 2009-12-08

• The two Business Week links are still dead. Maybe there is another better source for the same information? The links don't seem very stable.  Done
• The "Factories", "Products", and "Vianor..." sections are devoid of wikilinks. Not that I'm saying to go crazy and overlink things, but surely there are at least a few terms in those sections that are important enough to link?  Done
• Excellent job reworking the History section -- it is very well done.

-- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)