|Tron Øgrim was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Work on wikipedia
Should this even be included? No disrespect intended, but is this verifiable/noteworthy? It reads like original/POV material? I trimmed a little but will not remove unless there is more feedback. Thanks! --Tom 18:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure that, with the added documentation, you will agree that this section is a valid inclusion. __meco 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
After having read through this article, I have to say that this article has a whole host of problems.
- The article is completely lacking broadness of coverage right from the get-go. The early life section dedicates only three sentences to the first four decades of his life – it says nothing about his family, the circumstances of his growing up, his education, explanations for his involvement in the Communist party, his influences etc. etc. This information is clearly available, as it is summarized in his infobox (which by the way, is far too detailed for the size of the article itself) and contains an amazing amount of information that is not found in the body of the article itself. There's also a bibliography at the end that contains almost a dozen books, but there's not a single word written about them or their significance.
- There's is a large lack of references and citations, especially for the amount of potentially challengeable material in this article, including direct quotations. Eg: The second half of Politics and Journalism and half of Norwegian Wikipedia work. Without these citations, it's impossible for me to tell what (if anything) is original research in this article.
- I get the distinct feeling that there is significant bias in this article - surely as a self-declared Communist, he must have attracted some criticism from somewhere at some point in his life that is worth mentioning. Calling him the "most influential" or "extremely important" should really have a large amount of evidence backing it up - influential or important, yes. Most influential or extremely important – that really needs a solid backing, which this article lacks.
- The lead technically summarizes the whole article, but, as I pointed out the whole article is lacking some very significant points that would usually be included in the lead.
- The prose is awfully jumpy and flows poorly, going from idea to idea. A lot of consecutive "he did this" then "he did that" sentences and so on.
- The last year and a half of his life is given as much space as the first 58 years – given everything that he did in his earlier years, this is a completely unbalanced treatment of the subject.
- One sentence doth not a Level 2 Header make. That section either needs expansion (ie. add details about tributes, effects of his death etc. etc.) or to be merged in a currently non-extant "Later life" section as a Level 3 Header.
- After all that, a small stylistic concern would be to move the second picture to a less awkward location.
I apologize that I cannot give more specific commentary, but so much is lacking in this article, and I can't comment on it if it doesn't exist. This article needs almost a complete revamping before it would be ready for GA Status and, for that reason, I am going to fail the article at this point. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Øgrim and his murderers becomes a worthless encyclopedia!
For those who have followed Trond Øgrim's activities for a lifetime, the following events were easy to predict. Few months after Øgrim appoints himself to Wikipedia magnitude in Norway, a series of articles about the great men of communism appear on the front page of Norwegian Wikipedia (screenshot on the left).
One topic is the world's biggest murderer – and Øgrim's ideological guiding star – Mao Tse Tung. On Norwegian Wikipedia we can read the objective hero's-tale:
"Mao has the honor of creating a (nearly) united China without foreign influence."
The Wikipedia article goes on praising Mao;
"Mao is sometimes referred to as the great four: great teacher, great leader, great general, great helmsman (...) Mao is still very popular in China. One remembers that under his leadership, there was laid to grounds a series of public welfare measures, amongst others – free school, free health service, guarantee of work. Poverty went down, the widespread analphabetism was heavily reduced in short time and the average age rose. A large part of the appreciation that the Chinese have to Mao (...)"
Mao's well directed famine that took the lives of tens of millions of Chinese is explained as famine caused nearly forceful but necessary confiscation of the Chinese farmers` harvests.
While Mao's genocide nearly was a great man's neccessary action, Hitler's crimes were comitted by none more than a villain. This despite the fact that Mao killed about 10 times as many people.
The fact that Trond Øgrim finds 58 million dead Chinese (who aren't even mentioned in Wikipedia's text about Mao) far less problematic than 6 million dead Jews is not surprising and reflects only his deranged view on humanity. To normal people without political social dysfunction, genocide is an objectionable action, independent of numbers or how «neccessary» or «practical» the genocide was carried out.
That Wikipedia's pseudo official standpoint now contains a revisionistic view on Chinese history make up more than an academic problem in that Wikipedia in its alliance with Øgrim and his murderers becomes a worthless encyclopedia.
- All polemical ranting aside, if you find specific parts of either the present article or any of the articles which Øgrim significantly contributed to, troublesome, you should address this specifically, either requesting that unsourced assertions be referenced or add critical sources to what you find to be biased. __meco (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)