Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Regions of Peru
- 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 01:38, 29 March 2008.
Selfnominating Regions of Peru as a well documented and referenced list of the first-level administrative regions in Peru. The list was formerly shown in the did you know section on the main page. ErickAgain (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)--.[reply]
- Comments:
- Is the first column of the list really needed? It's redundant with Ubigeo, and it acts to number things that aren't ranked in any way other than alphabetically. I say get rid of the first column altogether.
- Coat of Arms and Location shouldn't be sortable.
- There needs to be a link to the former regions apart from the disambiguation page, just a small section about how there used to be a separate system of regions, with a link.
- That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support – Please explain in the prose above the table what "Ubigeo" is. Also note that Ubigeo redirects to UBIGEO, so also update the table to reflect that. Other than that, well done. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is hard for me to understand the need for some items in the bibliography. Why is a news article about the Decline and Fall of Fujimori relevant for Regions of Peru? I would rather put it as bibliography for the history of Peru or the Fujimori article. The same for the article about the elections in 2002: are they relevant here? If they are, maybe consider making them references, for they are not self-explanatory. I think the Spanish bibliography is more relevant, but my Spanish is extremely limited so you might need to reconsider them as well. For the rest: great article! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Bibliography" section summarizes all references used in the article, it is not a "Further reading" section. The BBC link is used to support an statement on the causes of Fujimori's fall which can be a somewhat controversial item. As for the Spanish references, they were used in the article because there's little info available on Peruvian regions in English. Peruvian regional elections are not even covered by international news organizations like Reuters or the BBC. --Victor12 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I understand it better, I did not see that the bibliography items were also in the Notes section. But, I still oppose to this use. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, what you call "Bibliography" is called "references". The Schönwälder, O'Neill and law references are OK, but the BBC and New York Times references are no books, and the same information is just given twice. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bibliography" has been changed into "References" to avoid further confusions. I don't think web references (such as ONPE electoral results) need to be deleted. The purpose of this section is to give the casual reader a quick overview of all sources used, not just books. Is there any Wikipedia guideline on this? --Victor12 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I know or can find. But there should be. For the time being, I think the BBC and NYT references should be removed, you think they should not, so a third person commenting on this would be nice :)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. BTW, how about shortening web references in the footnotes? That way only the title and the author (e.g. BBC, Fujimori...) would be shown in the footnotes and the rest of the info (publishing date, retrieval date) would be shown in the References section. Would that be enough? --Victor12 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I know or can find. But there should be. For the time being, I think the BBC and NYT references should be removed, you think they should not, so a third person commenting on this would be nice :)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bibliography" has been changed into "References" to avoid further confusions. I don't think web references (such as ONPE electoral results) need to be deleted. The purpose of this section is to give the casual reader a quick overview of all sources used, not just books. Is there any Wikipedia guideline on this? --Victor12 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I understand it better, I did not see that the bibliography items were also in the Notes section. But, I still oppose to this use. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, what you call "Bibliography" is called "references". The Schönwälder, O'Neill and law references are OK, but the BBC and New York Times references are no books, and the same information is just given twice. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Caption for clickable map is fragment so doesn't need a full stop.
- In Safari, the map renders over the top of part of the next section preventing me from seeing it all.
- "the process thus, it is not part of any region." - comma seems misplaced to me.
- Density in the table should clarify that its population density.
- Do you really need the area to the nearest 0.01 square km?
- See Also per WP:HEAD should be See also.
- That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, full stop removed, comma removed, Density changed to Population density, and See Also changed to See also. As for the area, should it be rounded to the nearest 0.1 or to the nearest 1 square km? As for the Safari problem I'm not sure on the cause. Maybe its the frame, do you have the same problem with this version? --Victor12 (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as for area, it's up to you but I felt that it's a little "over accurate" if you get my drift. Nearest sq km would do, and a note to the effect that it's rounded that way. As for the map, it doesn't seem to be a problem with the version you've linked to... Don't know what's going on there...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Areas are now rounded to the nearest whole unit. The difference in the map is that the version with problems has an {{Imageframe}} template. The framed version looks better so I'm not sure on what to do. Could you post a comment at the template talk page to see if the problem can be resolved there? --Victor12 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as for area, it's up to you but I felt that it's a little "over accurate" if you get my drift. Nearest sq km would do, and a note to the effect that it's rounded that way. As for the map, it doesn't seem to be a problem with the version you've linked to... Don't know what's going on there...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, full stop removed, comma removed, Density changed to Population density, and See Also changed to See also. As for the area, should it be rounded to the nearest 0.1 or to the nearest 1 square km? As for the Safari problem I'm not sure on the cause. Maybe its the frame, do you have the same problem with this version? --Victor12 (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks pretty good to me. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are the ISBN numbers available for the referenced books? If so, I think they should be added.--Crzycheetah 20:56, 28 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.