Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unrecognized countries/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 promoted 14:39, 10 March 2008.

List of unrecognized countries edit

I believe that this article is ready to become a WP:FL. It used to be a toddler article, but I now consider this article a big boy article. Gary King (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Gonzo_fan2007

I dont have time for an in depth review, but the statement "More countries are likely to recognise Kosovo in the coming months" needs a direct reference, or needs rewording because this sounds exactly like someones opinion and crystal-balling. Great list though and Im sure it will garner enough support. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed. Gary King (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Not keen on the bullet points in the Recognition column, only vaguely useful twice. I'd write it out as prose.
    • I'd also prefer to see the columns of each table the same width.
    • Link to de jure.
    • You abbreviate "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus " and "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" but never use the abbreviation but you don't abbreviate " People's Republic of China" but you use "ROC". Inconsistent.
      • Amended so that abbreviations are offered only when they're later used.
    • Do PRC and ROC both mean the People's Republic of China?
      • No. PRC=China. ROC=Taiwan
    • I fixed one of you date fields in the Israel cite web, just to let you know!
  • Otherwise yet another great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support works for me now my concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC):[reply]
    • Your map is showing the two Koreas in light green, where the rest of the green is dark.
    • Resolved comments by Golbez
    • Comments:
      • Seconding the use of bullets; not useful at all. Prose can be used in the two situations where they're actually used.
      • The line about UN nations is odd - you mention the PRC and Cyprus, but use a weird parenthetical form for Korea - are the Koreas recognized by one country in the UN? Doubtful. And you omit Israel from that list, even though it has less recognition than the PRC and therefore is a more interesting mention.
      • The prose in the Palestine entry needs work.
      • Standardize the language - I see both 'recognize' and 'recognise'.
        • Done
      • I see no point to giving acronyms when they aren't reused. This applies to SADR, TRNC, and UNSCR.
        • Removed
      • Lots of reference work needed:
        • There's no reference for Israel's lacking relations with 34, and lacking recognition by two.
        • Likewise, there's no references for the Koreas lack of mutual recognition. Also, the source for North Korean independence is a bit wanting; surely we can find something other than a Google ad farm.
        • Cyprus: Why not link directly to the CIA Fact Book?
        • Some need formatting; not enough capital letters in [2] or [3], for example.
        • Taiwan's ref lacks any mention of the recognition.
        • In general, the references work for independence, but there's no or few references at present citing the number of countries recognizing the partially recognized ones.
      • Kosovo stands out by saying "some"; since this situation is in flux I think a justification for the omission needs to be made. Like, "it declared independence on this date, and its status is still in flux, with a number of countries recognizing it"
    • That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll rejudge the article later. --Golbez (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

    Comment Awesome list! Very well done. I only have a few minor suggestions: first the footnotes should be numbered/labeled more clearly. Give each a number (Roman numerals are often used, though letters would be fine too) in order to distinguish them from each other either in the main tables or between each other in the footnotes section. Also, shouldn't reference #1 be considered a footnote rather than a reference (source of information)? Lastley, an external links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Reference 1 is part of a template and I'd rather not touch it. Gary King (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work! One last thing: the publisher values should be wikilinked wherever possible (ie International Herald Tribune). Drewcifer (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Alright, done, although I only wikified the ones that I know existed (BBC News, NY Times, etc.) Gary King (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have concerns the list is not stable, as Tamil Eelam's presence is challenged by more than one party. Maybe tighter criteria need to be noted? --Golbez (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have continued this discussion on the article's Talk page. Gary King (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - referencing. The entries rely on other Wikipedia articles, but looking at Cyprus, where Foreign relations of Cyprus say it's not recognized by Turkey - and is unsourced in that article, so far as I can tell. I was originally forgiving about the lack of referencing for recognition/lack thereof, assuming our other articles were up to snuff; sadly, they are not. I now must ask for the statements in this article to be sourced, without relying on other Wikipedia articles. Will switch vote if this can be fixed. On the other hand, the stability issue is probably fixed. --Golbez (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being more specific: Now that I look, the only deficiency really is the Cyprus one. The other entires are either sourced, or their 'parent articles' are well-sourced. Cyprus is the only one lacking sources in either this or the other article. --Golbez (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added this as a source for the Cyprus issue. Gary King (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah. Well then. :) I guess I have to switch to Support now. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment same named column in each table should have the same width in all tables. A more professional appearance. Hmains (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are, at least for me. Try another browser? Gary King (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment North Korea may not be recognized by many other countries than just South Korea; South Korea may not be recognized by several other countries than just North Korea. Fact check needed. Hmains (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with those is trying to prove a negative. The lack of recognition of North Korea by South Korea is extremely significant; a lack of recognition of North Korea by Mauritania, if one existed, is much less so. I'm still concerned the list's criteria may not be specific or stable enough... --Golbez (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2008 (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_unrecognized_countries/archive1&oldid=1141920671"