Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by future HDI projections of UN/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 by Rambo's Revenge 21:06, 9 November 2010 [1].

List of countries by future HDI projections of UN edit

List of countries by future HDI projections of UN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cohneli (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article, because it instructively exemplifies how the main relevant point of an interesting UN survey, which was ignored (and almost "lost") in the web so far, can be exhausted - verbally and visually - into a neat, well-ordered and well organized encyclopedic article, which is appropriate mainly for online encyclopedias like Wikipedia, due to its futuristic characteristics. Cohneli (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. First, this should be a featured list, not a featured article. Furthermore, text such as that under "Special cases" should have a reference to a reliable source, to avoid the impression of original research. In fact, no secondary sources are used. Last, there seems to be an article missing from the list title. Ucucha 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::Re your first objection: yes, this article could also be proposed as a featured list candidate, but the list itself constitutes one chapter only, out of 8, so I think this article can also be proposed as a featured article candidate.

Re your first objection (about the "special cases"): thank you for your constructive note. I've just fixed the problem, by moving the unsourced comment to an editorial footnote.
Re your second objection (about absence of secondary source): Notice that the article uses two sources (one of which was given an external link).
Re your third obejection: Sorry, but I couldn't figure out what you mean. Could you add more details?
Cohneli (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::#I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I think it would defeat the purpose of a separate process for featured lists to propose an article entitled "List of ..." as a featured article.

  1. Original research is as bad (or good) in a footnote as in the main text.
  2. Although there are several sources, all appear to be primary in that they are directly related to the UN paper. Has there been no third-party analysis of this list? If not, the list may not even be considered notable.
  3. I think you need to say "by the UN". Perhaps "List of countries by projected HDI" would be even better. Ucucha 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::#I agree that this article could also be proposed as a Featured List candidate, but just by default, because it's more suitable for the category of Featured article candidates, and let me explain why: The separate category of Featured List candidates, is not for proposing an article whose title is "List of..." only, but rather mainly for proposing an article most of which is devoted to presenting the list. In our case, the very list constitutes one chapter only (out of 8), whereas most of the article is devoted to discussing the list, rather than to presenting it.

  1. Ok, I've fixed again the problem, by re-formulating the editorial footnote. Now the footnote does not assume anything, but rather asserts what everbody should accept.
  2. The article mentions two surveys: The first UN survey, that was published in April 2010, was performed by a pair of authers, one of which is Hu Difei (the other one being Beth Daponte). The other UN survey, published in September 2010, was performed by a pair of authors, one of which is Asher Jana (the other one being Beth Daponte). Note that Jana just quotes the figures taken from the first survey, but he does that for other purposes (i.e. for his "Cohort Model"). So, the first UN survey is the primary source, whereas the second UN survey is the secondary source. Anyways, thanks to your constructive note, I've just made it clearer in the article, by replacing the word "re-published", by the word "quoted".
  3. Ok, I've fixed the problem, according to your suggestion.
Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It should definitely be a Featured List candidate if an article at all. It's just republishing information available in a primary source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Re your first comment (about the Featured List candidate): see above my response (no. 1) to Ucucha. :Re your second comment (about the primary source),

see above my response (no. 2) to Ucucha.
Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Are you sure I'm allowed to move it? Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]
If you're amenable to it being moved, contact a FAC and a FLC delegate to organise it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sure what to make of this page, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be featured.

  1. As Ucucha, there are no secondary sources in this page. Also, references need formatting correctly. Accessdates, publishers, publication dates, authors, etc etc
  2. Moving an unsourced statement to an editorial footnote doesn't fix the problem. The statement is still unsourced. Why should everybody accept it just because you say they should? You're telling us that they made a typo. Why? Why isn't it more likely that they have it right and you've decided they made a mistake?
  3. Don't use contractions such as "doesn't" in that footnote.
  4. WP:LEDE section is too short. The Lede should introduce all the main points of the main body of the page
  5. Background section is a bit waffly
  6. "The UNDP indicates (ibid.)" -- I don't think WP does ibid referencing..
  7. Small text in tables is too small
  8. Where one or more entry is the same, such as Australia and Norway in the first table, instead of "1-2", use "1="
  9. No need for flags per MOS:FLAG. Removing them will give you the extra space needed for increasing the text size
  10. I also have the same concerns about this not being any third-party analysis. Your rebuttal seems to be that the UN is the secondary source because they've used their own papers for their information? That doesn't fly.
  11. What are the UN's copyright policies. Seems we're just republishing their list here.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive comments:
  1. Re the secondary source: Note that all of Wikipedia articles about economical lists, e.g. the article List of countries by Human Development Index, and the article List of countries by GNI (nominal, Atlas_method) per capita, and the article List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita, and many other articles, are about lists given by the UN (and by its institutions, like the World Bank), so, do you really think that all of those articles about economical lists should be deleted? Anyways, thanks to Ucucha's last comment you've mentioned, I had already improved the article (see my last response to them), thus making it clearer that the article does include a secondary source! Notice that the article mentions two surveys: The first UN survey, that was published in April 2010, was performed by a pair of authers, one of which is Hu Difei (the other one being Beth Daponte). The other UN survey, published in September 2010, was performed by a pair of authors, one of which is Asher Jana (the other one being Beth Daponte). Note that Jana just quotes the figures taken from the first survey, but he does that for other purposes (i.e. for his "Cohort Model"). So, the first UN survey is the primary source, whereas the second UN survey is the secondary source.
  2. Re the editorial note: It seems like you haven't read it! Where does it "tell us that they made a typo"? This footnote does not need a source, just because everybody accepts it, since it assumes nothing ! It doesn't even assume that they made a typo! let me cite it, and try to tell me where it assumes anything, or which part of it is not accepted by everybody: "If the calculation does not involve a simple error that wrongfully replaces the first (correct) digit 9 by 8, then - according to this UN projection - Czech Republic's HDI is expected to miss 96 points (out of 903) by 2010". Do you really disagree with any part of this footnote?
  3. Re "doesn't": thank you for your constructive comment, I've fixed that.
  4. Re the LEDE section: thanks to your constructive comment, I've just improved the LEDE. Really, even the current LEDE is still short, however that's just becuase most of the article is about details, e.g. the details included in the very country list, or the technical details about countries not included in the list, or the technical details about probabilistic reservations, and likewise. I can't imagine which of those details should be mentioned in the LEDE, which (in my opinion) introduces all the main points of the main body of the page, i.e. excluding the details mentioned in the article.
  5. Re the Background: could you be more specific? "a bit waffly" is not a constructive comment, is it?
  6. Re "The UNDP indicates (ibid.)": thank you for your constructive comment, I've fixed that.
  7. Re the small text in the tables: thank you for your constructive comment, I've improved that, by replacing the small headers (of the tables) by bigger ones. As for the country names, the flags help as well (they are needed, as I will explain below).
  8. Re "1=" instead of "1-2": Note that "1=" is used whenever it's already known that both entries are ranked first. However, this is not our case, because (maybe) only one country is ranked first, the other one being ranked second, whereas we don't know which one is the first, because the source gives rounded values of HDI only, and does not rank the countries, except for the 2030 projection, for which the source gives an exact ranking (with rounded values).
  9. Re the flags: Wikipedia does not recommend to use flags attached to personal names, and the like; However, attaching flags to country names, mainly in tables, is standard and widely accepted. In our case, using flags is even recommended, because this article belongs to a category of many other articles containing economical lists, such as the article: List of countries by Human Development Index, and the like, whereas all of those articles do use flags along with the country names.
  10. Re the secondary source: see above, note no. 1.
  11. Re UN's copyright policies: The UN is a public institution, belonging to all citizens of the world, and financed by these citizens' countries. As such, it permits to use any information it publishes, unless indicated otherwise. That's why Wikipedia contains many other articles about lists published by UN (and by its institutions, like the World Bank), e.g. the article: List of countries by Human Development Index, and the article List of countries by GNI (nominal, Atlas_method) per capita, and the article List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita, and many other articles.
  12. Re your claim that it "Seems we're just republishing their list here". Well, you could claim that also about the article List of countries by Human Development Index, and about many other articles mantioned above. Anyway, notice that Wikipedia doesn't quote only: It also re-organizes the data in an encyclopedic manner, e.g. by ranking the countries according to their HDI, in every table of the five, what the UN has not done.
Anyway, I thank you again for your constructive comments. You are welcome to add more comments, that may help improve the article.
Cohneli (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the "special case" of the Czech Republic, it is frankly impossible that the prediction published in the PDF is correct (this should obviously not go in the article). The country is politically stable and was less badly hit by the financial crisis than for example Hungary, which is growing nicely. To avoid original research in the article, it would be appropriate to mail those behind this list and, in case they did in fact make a mistake publish a correction, which we can then cite, or in the case that they did not in fact make a mistake remove the footnote altogether. --Aqwis (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already sent them an email a few days ago, but I haven't received a response yet. Meanwhile, as long as they haven't responded, it's most recommended to add the footnote, which avoids original research, because it doesn't assume anything, but rather refers to both options: that the calculation is wrong, and that the calculation is correct. Cohneli (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_countries_by_future_HDI_projections_of_UN/archive1&oldid=1138486273"