Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently gone through and taken it from a practically unsourced state to a sourced list, and also done some major work on standardising the maps. I'm not sure what people are looking for in such an article, and I'm hoping this covers the most basic of information that is needed. A look at the notes would be useful, if they're needed and/or if others should be added.

Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks a very interesting and useful list, and it's surprising no one has thought of doing this before. I have a number of suggestions for you to consider, with a view to enhancing or improving it:-

  • Is it really necessary to have separate columns for English short name and English long name? Because of the maps, individual cells are quite large, and it should be possible to incorporate this information into one cell.
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same point can be made with regard to Domestic short name and Domestic long name which again I believe could be consolidated.
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This condensing would allow you to include information which is at present missing, e.g.
    • Land area (and population density - surely this would be interesting and relevant?)
? Added areas, but was wondering if since population and area are both included then perhaps population density could be replaced by something else? I was thinking that perhaps HDI or some similar statistic would be appropriate, but I doubt that information will be easily found for the unrecognised states. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Official languages. This might be obvious in many cases, but by no mean all. How many peopole know offhand what languages are spoken in, say, Andorra, Lichtenstein, Luxemborg or Kosovo?
  Done The domestic names provided by UNGEGN are the "languages used in an official capacity within each country in the world"; I've added a note of that in the lead.
    • I believe that countries which are only partially in Europe should be listed separately. For example, only a very small area of Turkey is in Europe, most of Russia is in Asia. I know that the status of these countries is explained by notes, but many people glancing at the tables won't study the notes.
  Not done I understand this, but dividing the list would probably create a large number of disputes. The countries are already noted as crossing the border in the lead, and I've written in the lead that the maps show areas not in Europe in light green. I'm hoping the maps will be explanation enough.
  • I think you are muddying the waters by references to the cultural links to Europe of overseas territories and former colonies. The title says specifically "in Europe", and the article should reflect this geographical principle. In this connection I think the position of Cyprus needs clarifying. Your note says "Cyprus is in Asia", but who says this is so? In fact, Cyprus isn't "in" any continent, though its nearest landmasses are Anatolia and Syria, both in Asia. In that sense it is no different from Greenland, which you do not list. For the record, Cyprus is about 500 km from its nearest European neighbour, the same distance as Greenland is from its own nearest European neighbour, Iceland.
  Done Removed. Chipmunkdavis (talk)
  • By the same reasoning, the British bases in Cyprus are not "in Europe", neither is the unofficial sate of Northern Cyprus
  Done Reworded note, and placed a sourced sentence to the same effect in the lead. Added a sentence for Iceland too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eire" is not the domestic name for Ireland. It applied to the transitional state that existed from 1937 to 1949, but since then the official name has been "Poblacht na hÉireann".
  Not done All domestic names in the recognised states list are from the UNGEGN source, which uses Eire. I would prefer not to make exceptions unless necessary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your responses, and to seeing the article develop accordingly. Please contact my talkpage, as I am not able to watch individual peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: The link in ref 33 appears to be dead. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done New source Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: You have responded positively to most of my points. Here are a few more that you may wish to consider:-

  • The "area" column would look much tidier if you used "km²" rather than writing out "square kilometers" each time
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had envisaged a "Language(s)" column, which would save some repetition in individual cells.
I'm going to try and cut out the repetition somehow, per your note below of having the long and short names together. That should allow official languages and names to be in one column, with the languages wikilinked. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Repetition excluded due to naming suggestion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you have combined certain columns, the headings need to be more explanatory. For example, "English name (Formal and short form)" and "Domestic name(s) (Formal and short form(s)"
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the individual cell entries, would it make more sense to give the formal name first, in the style, for example: "Republic of Albania (short: Albania)"? In the "Domestic" column, some notation is necessary for some of the more complex, multiple language countries, to distinguish between the formal and short names. As a trial I have annotated the Switzerland entry; you might consider doing this generally.
Will do somehow, see above. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done using a variation fo your "Republic of Albania (short: Albania)" suggestion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the domestic sell for the UK could be left blank
This may be an option, considering the UK can be argued as having no official language. I'd like in general to keep domestic names in english included, to show the official status. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done To show official Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the UNGEGN source says, "Eire" is the Irish word for "Ireland", not for the Irish Republic that occupies four-fifths of the geographical island of Ireland. Eire was, as I said, used by the transitional 1937-49 state, on aspirational grounds, but has never been used by the Republic. I can understand, though, that you would rather stick to what your sources tell you.
  • Finally, please remember that in this review I am making suggestions, which you are free to take up, modify or reject as you think fit. I wish you success with the list if you take it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Night w

I hate to interfer with other reviewers' comments, but I'd like to make a quick correction to that "Ireland" comment, if I may. I don't know where Brian is getting his information from, but the name of the Irish republic is stated in Art. 4 of the Constitution, quite clearly: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." Whatever naming convention is practised by the government, Éire is the official name of the state, which is what the column refers to.

Just a few comments:

  • The guys at PR and FLC don't seem to like that opening sentence style "This is a list of ...". It might do better to start with "There are 50 sovereign states with territory in Europe ..." or something similar.
Not sure how to do this, cut the first sentence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. Nightw 09:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest replacing "common definition" with "frequently used definition" or something similar, since "common" can also imply agreement or something shared by opposites.
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links to "social contract" and "geopolitics" might be seen as overlinking.
  Done Removed links and the entire word geopolitics Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to have both shading and asteriks to denote EU members? Two different indicators normally indicate two different things. Unless this was an WP:ACCESS issue, I suggest using only one.
This was in fact an ACCESS issue. It used to be just colours, and then a user stated that things should never be noted with just colour. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered using <hr> lines instead of <br> breaks between the short- and long-form names? Or merging the two, as in "Catalan: Andorra — Principat d'Andorra", if only to avoid seeing the languages repeated? I've no idea how these would look; I'm just throwing suggestions out there.
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longforms for Abkhazia and South Ossetia are missing...?
  • The column header "Legal status" is definitely a red light, but I can't think of anything better at the moment.
  Done Made it just "status" for unrecognised states, gave recognition numbers. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the notes need references.
Note 1 is just explanatory. Notes 3 and 4 are both cited elsewhere, 3 after the word Czechia and 4 in the lead. Footnotes 2 and 7 are just explanatory based on the border given in the lead and shown on the maps. I suppose a source could be found, although I'm not sure where I would source it. As for notes 5, 6, 8, and 9, I'm not sure where I would place sources for them. They're just there to explain previous common disputes. Note numbers taken from this revision. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just realised you're using ref tags for the notes, so you won't be able to add citations to them anyway. One thing, though: the tool server picks up "are considered", which is used in Note 7, as a weasel word. It might be better to rephrase as "under the definition used on this page, X and Y have territory in..." or something along those lines, so that you've identified the "by whom?" question that would probably pop up there. I've added citations for the defintion, taken from Europe.
  • I'm not keen on the refs in the See also section. These would look better in the Notes section, with "For more information, see..." as a default prefix. You could even perhaps push them all into one note.
  Done Integrated into tables. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not keen on a lot of the borderline entries included. But that's a different matter, and I won't have the time to stick to a discussion on that at the moment.

I'll give the citations a formatting cleanup when I get a chance. Nightw 00:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried something with languages in the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe#Unrecognised sovereign states section. Comments? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this looks good! Nightw 09:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you ever wanted to submit this to FLC, they'd demand alt text for the images. Nightw 09:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression this wasn't needed for FA's anymore. What should I put as alt text, flag of X? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Links added to flags as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also should the Sovereign Military Order of Malta be added to the list? They are a recognized state. Spongie555 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly where in the article you've just linked to does it say that? Nightw 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section called I international status Sovereign Military Order of Malta#International status of the Order also on their website they have a list of nations that they have relations with [1] except I would say it's a partially recognized state as it isn't recognized by every country In the world. Spongie555 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? Neither say anything of the sort. The section you linked instead says "it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state", and the website doesn't mention anything about statehood. It's not a state, and doesn't claim to be one, nor is it "recognized" as one by any other state. It just has diplomatic relations with states. That's to do with law. It doesn't equal statehood. Nightw 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SMOM shouldn't be included. Even if it is a state, it doesn't have territory, and so isn't a state in Europe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GreatOrangePumpkin quick comments

First of all: Great list! I have a few comments:

  • Notes column: AKazakhstan, Russia and Turkey have territory in both Europe (dark green) and Asia (light green).
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also why you wrote dark green and light green? If you mean the map, Asia is dark grey and Europe is light grey.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is the colour of the asian and european parts of those countries on the map. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6, 5: The accessdates should use the same format as the others
  Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to put more confederations; EU is too less in my opinion. What about countries with the Schengen visa? Or NATO members?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done EU was added due to its powerful institutions, which gives it some of the ahllmarks of a sovereign state. No other European organisation has this supranational power. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Europe/archive1&oldid=1138563501"