Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of states with limited recognition/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 23:31, 13 February 2011 [1].
List of states with limited recognition edit
List of states with limited recognition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Outback the koala, Pfainuk, Ladril, Alinor, Danlaycock, EmilJ, Chipmunkdavis, Golbez, HighFlyingFish, Gary King, IANVS, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject International relations.
The current version differs significantly from when it was promoted. I am nominating this list in order to identify areas requiring improvement. There are certain aspects in this article that require attention:
The lead section is short, and does not adequately describe the topic.- There is also the issue of a detailed "Excluded entries" section, which goes against the Manual of Style: "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."
- There is a serious lack of reliable sources in the body.
In addition, many citations are shown as simple urls, with no further details. There is no apparent citation style. - There is a Notes section with one footnote in it, but there are more footnotes to be found in the References section. These need to be placed in the appropriate section.
More inconsistencies may be found at the automated peer reviewer. There have also recently been several proposals for additional information, which has affected the article's stability. This review may be helpful in determining whether or not the proposed information is useful. Nightw 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment About the "excluded entities" section - it doesn't "leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria" and it doesn't make "editors guessing what may be added to the list". The list inclusion criteria are clearly described further up in another section. Having "excluded entities" section has the opposite effect of what you claim - it clearly states that the list excludes such entities that editors may wrongly assume that should be included. Nobody can be confused that these entities are included since they are in a section named "excluded entities". Alinor (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is in the wrong order. It should start with the "most recognized" states and end with the ones that are not recognized at all. Also, the further information column is not ideal. Nergaal (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why change the order? This is a list of unrecognized countries, so it would make more sense to start with the least recognized countries.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur, this order makes the most sense to me also. Outback the koala (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "list of unrecognised countries". It's a list of states with limited recognition. Why not make it sortable so anyone can set up as they like, with the current setup as default? Ladril (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is NOT a list of UNrecognized countries, which should start with unrecognized countries. It is a states with LIMITED recognition, so it should start with those with limited recognition, and end with those without any recognition. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current setup is fine in my opinion. Nightw 10:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Current arrangement is fine. The article contents don't have to exactly reflect the article title, and when dealing with states with limited recognition, those most notable would be those with little to no recognition, which is why they are placed first. Each section has a different level of recognition, and within those sections the countries are listed per order of recognition. The other option would be starting with those basically fully recognised (such as Armenia, which lack one recognition), ending with those with barely any recognition (Transnistria) and none at all (Somaliland), which in my opinion would be unhelpful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current setup is fine in my opinion. Nightw 10:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur, this order makes the most sense to me also. Outback the koala (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's the status on this FLRC? What still needs to be addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments not looking ideal for featured status right now because..
- A maintenance tag across the top of the lead needs addressing.
- Is the lead image accessible?
- Six paras in the lead seems a little too much per WP:LEAD for any article.
- The "Further information" column is very confusing with it's rowspans, some empty, some with red links...
- Table column widths should ideally be the same from section to section.
- Some poor links (e.g. 74 -> International recognition of Kosovo, Palestinian Liberation Organization -> Palestine Liberation Organization [should be accurate])
- "sovereign subject of international law [73] " ref placement.
- When you abbreviate something, add it clearly, e.g. "Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a " should be "Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) is a "
- I see at least one tagged dead link, poorly formatted references, a mixture of date formats in the references (which should be avoided), some footnotes masquerading as references (e.g. ref 32).
Overall, currently, delist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.