Talk:Core countries

Educational assignment discussions

Heads up

Hello Pagemaker, Interesting subject and would have absolutely agreed with it 15 years back. kindly update yourself and your bias sources and realize that the US and the Europeans have lost the ultimate economical control over, at least, over Asian countries. - Factchecker P.S.: did not have the time to place this comment appropriately. Kindly do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.180.208 (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to give interested editors heads up that this article will likely a become a subject of an educational assignment aiming to expand it and raise to to a Good Article class over the next month or so. This assignment has led to good results in the past, but please note that with the exception of the course supervisor (myself) the new editors who will be working on this article are new to Wikipedia. Any assistance and guidance you can offer to them will be much appreciated, and let's keep this in mind :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Also students, I've asked a question in hidden format in the article, asking why Chiina is not considerd a core country now, as a bunch of stuff is made there. If anyone answers it, well, I'll think of a prize. Buggie111 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To Do List/Direction for the Article

Hi Group,

I was thinking that it may be a good idea to discuss old hegemonic powers - like we have learned about through our readings. So we could break down the article within the pre 13th century, and the 13th to 15th centuries. We could then break it down from the 15th century to the 18th century; and then from 18th century til the current time period.

I guess we should also define the terms semi-perphery and perphery countries and link them to it. Then maybe we could also talk about theories on who/which countries could become a future core country.

So we would need someone focusing on the following time periods (with the economy and focusing on the core countries)

1. pre 13th century
2. 13th to 15th century
3. 15th to 18th century
4. 18th to early 19th century
5. early 19th century to present

What does everyone think of this?

JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I like setting it up like this. I would be willing to do the early 19th century till present, since that is what I have the most experience in. If someone else wants it though I'm willing to do any section

LBPearson (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I also like setting it up this way. However, I do think that we should define what a core country is before we give examples and things like that. We should define what a "core country" is and then define semi periphery and periphery also and link them. I can start the intro paragraph as I described and then everyone can pitch in and touch it hope how our group feels best about it. I would also be willing to take the 18th to 19th century core country section if this is ok with the rest of the group. Prg22 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

May someone look at and answer my above question? (Also, to continue discussions, add a colon before your comment.) Buggie111 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can take the 13th to 15th century, if that's okay with everyone, or i could do whatever else is left. And to answer Buggie's question: Even though China is now a gigantic economy and supplier of goods to the whole world, to be a core, the standard of living of the Chinese has to increase, including better living conditions, higher wages, better health care, and more overall opportunities for the Chinese people. While there are still sweatshops (working for the western multinational corporations) in China, where people work for a few dollars a day, i don't think that China will be considered a core state. Sav12 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sav12. I didn't really see the "Strong middle class" part of the article. A rebuttal came to mind regarding all those Chineese entreupenuers I see, but I think they are too far, too few. I hope you get an A, and if possible, stay with Wikipedia and make this a featured article. Buggie111 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see a lively discussion here. I think your initial setup is a good start, but as Prg22 points out, you should avoid writing the "history of core countries" article - there is a little more to the subject than just the history. Definitions certainly are important. The article on Semi-periphery countries is a useful guide on which direction this article should go through (but mind you, this article failed short of a Good Article class - for reasons as to why, check the discussions on its talk page).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Group! I don't mind doing 18th to early 19th century. I plan to use a bit of what we are reading in The Age of Empire and perhaps some outside sources, utilizing sources at the library and also whatever I may be able to find on Google Scholar. There was a lot of transitioning it seems during this period and I will discuss that as well. See you all tomorrow in class. AngGor (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets keep the format like this and have everyone do what they proposed they would do. We should make sure that we define and give some background along with examples of what core countries are though. I will start researching the 18th and 19th century as well as getting information on how to define what a core country is. After that I will start making the edits. We can then conversate as a group and decide what we should keep and what we should add. Prg22 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For the intro I would just describe the significance of the core country. We can define it in the "defining a core country section." LBPearson (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the purpose of a core country, I don't think the third source needs to be included after every sentence, just the after all the info taken from the source. I could be wrong though, does anyone know for sure? LBPearson (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - the pre-13th century section needs MAJOR revisions. It would be a shame to imply that the only empires that existed before 1300 were Rome and China. I took the liberty of adding a few that I could think of off the top of my head, but please do take a more reliable approach, if that be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.94.116 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for oyur concern, but this section is the remnant of an education assignment, whose students, at a glance, aren't active on Wikipedia. you'd have better luck posting lower on the talkpage, in a unique section. Buggie111 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What is included in the Semi-Periphery Country section

SO I took Piotr's advice and here is how the Semi-Periphery project or page is broken out:

1. Sociologocial Theory (function)
2. History and Development

1. 13th century
2. 1300 - 1450
3. 1450 - 1700
4. 1700 - 1875
5. 1875 - 1914
6. 1914 - Today
7. Today

1. Effects
2. Examples

If we want to use this break down as a guide - then I would be willing to work on the Function (sociological theory) section and the Effects section. We don't have to break it out exactly as this other section but it is a good thing to base ours on. I think it would also be important to include a Definitions section - which maybe is something we could all work on together.

Here is my specific plan for what I plan to work on for the Function & Effects sections:

1. Read the Semi-periphery article (and if possible the periphery article)
2. Look up articles on definitions and the sociological theory behind Core Countries by using the Google Scholar website and Pitt's online academic website to find articles
3. Post what I have learned on this Talk page to inform my group mates of what resources were most helpful for me and what I have learned
4. Use the same resoureces to look up information on the Effects of Core Countries
5. Post what new information I have learned
6. Post what I have written for my sections to see what my groupmates think of it.
7. Assist group in what other areas need to be written.

Let me know what everyone thinks of this.

JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sergey's To-Do List

I see that there is a need for us to do more than a section each, if we are going to use the semi-periphery article as a guide. Therefore, here is my plan.

1. Take on the History and Development sections for 13th-15th centuries (ending in 1450), as well as the intro to the section
2. Use the materials from class, as well as other resources, to research the selected topic
3. Prepare encyclopedia-style entries, while coordinating them with Piotr
4. Post updates and any useful info on the talk page
5. Be there to help, if anyone needs it

Also, we'll need to find some illustrations so the page doesn't look too dry. Sav12 (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. On the topic of illustrations. My mind ( and seemingly the mind of the writers of Semi-periphery countries) would float to maps and diagrams instead of actual pictures, like a diagram of the hegemonic cycle, resource and quality of living diagrams for core coutnries of that era, and maybe just a couple of maps to illustrate the Holy Roman Empire, which I'm guessing was a core country in 1200-1450. Other thoughts from someone inside the project? Buggie111 (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Luke's To-Do List

I will take the History and Development from 1875-Today. I could also go 1700-Today if need be. I'll do anything else if we need it too.

1. Use materials from classes and the library and online journals to research the topic
2. Use that research to write sections for the wikipedia page
3. post updates
4. talk with group mates to find out what sections I can help with.

LBPearson (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I added an outline for my section, later today or tomorrow I will clean it up and add sources. If anyone needs help let me know.

LBPearson (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick's To-Do List

I will take the 16th-17th century and I will start the introduction paragraph that will start defining what core countries are.

1. Use class materials, google books, and other reliable internet resources to find out information on my topic
2. Start the introduction paragraph and start defining the core country term
3. Start my section of the 15th-18th century after I get the introduction underway
4. Finalize other group members to-do lists

Prg22 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just made an edit to Defining a core country. I will revise the wording that is not referenced and make sure I re-state what is said with a reference added on to it later in the week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prg22 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Change of plans. I am doing 15th century- 18th century

Angie's To-Do List

I plan to:

1. Utilize the books we already have, namely The Age of Empire as I believe the first chapter talks exclusively about my time period.
2. To search for other sources at:

• Google Books
• Hillman Library
• Carnegie Library
• Etc.

1. Also, to make edits as often as possible.
2. To help my group mates (if the opportunity ever arrises and it's not just me who needs help.)

Should be snappy, gang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngGor (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Useful Resources

The Modern World System, I.Wallerstein http://marriottschool.byu.edu/emp/WPW/Class%209%20-%20The%20World%20System%20Perspective.pdf

Globalization and Inequality of Nations, P. Krugman, A. Venables http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2946642.pdf

Legitimacy and Comparative Economic Success at the Core of the World System: An Exploratory Study, V.Bornschier http://www.jstor.org/stable/522337

Books: The historical foundation of world order: the tower and the arena, D. Johnston Civilizations and world systems: studying world-historical change, S.Sanderson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sav12 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sav12 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Set-up

I just set up the outline on our page. Can we all try to add quite a few "subheadings" just to make our page a little sexier? Maybe this goes without saying... Maybe after a little research we'll all know better what to put in each of our sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngGor (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will also work on the pre 13th century section. I started working on the purpose or function section today in class. I plan on trying to see if our library has copies available of this book for me to use further on.

JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I finally found an ok resource to use for the 15th-18th centuries. I am really going to have to search through the book though. Hopefully I will get some quality information up tomorrow. If anyone finds anything else useful please post the resource. Prg22 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I will work on my parts after my exam on Thursday. After that I will just have this project to work on. Pat - I will let you know how if I find any sources that fit your section. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I will also work on the rest of this project after my exam on thursday. I found some information leading into the 15th-18th century which I already posted. Take a look at it and let me know if anyone thinks it should be in the section before 15th-18th century. I still have a lot more editing to make but i think i found some ok information so i will continue after my exam. Prg22 (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't really know what to discuss here, except that i am gathering together and reading up on my research and will be putting it all together tomorrow. Sav12 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

oh, and Julia, i meant to say that i will do from the start to 1450, including the pre-13th century, so you don't have to do that, unless you want to. Sav12 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman - comment from another group

Hey guys it's Roman from another group in the class working on the "Great Divergence" article. I'm going away this weekend and won't have internet access, so I have to post this comment a little early (I know the due date for stuff getting up is not until tomorrow). For your article though I'd definitely try to stress how core countries are not permanent entities, they change through time. Talk about some of the factors that can enhance a core country or lead it to fall to the periphery. For our article, the focus is on the late 18th and 19th century, so if you have any questions regarding that time period just stop by our talk page. Thanks guys I hope it all turns out well! RomanHarlovic (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks Sergey - its all yours then, but let me know if you need any help with it. As for Roman's comments, I think he makes some good points. I will look into some of these things he brought up today. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick- Summary of other group's pages

From looking at the other articles, I think we are on the right track. As I was saying on the periphery countries page, we could use some of the same resources they use because core and periphery go hand in hand. Also, let's get all the general info up first but then add some pictures and things to our page to make it look better. I think we have all the pieces we just need to put it together. Make sure that everyone links terms to other pages too. That is something I need to do also. Have a good weekend everyone. Prg22 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know if we can cite our lecture slides and how can that be done? Sav12 (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just site it the same way as a book. Only Piotr is the author. Prg22 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Or cite it as a lecture - or at least that is what this cite says to do: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7175385/How-to-Cite-PowerPoint-and-other-Media JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys Sav12 (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question: you should avoid citing the lecture slides; a major issue with them is that they are not accessible for people not enrolled in the course and thus cannot be verified independently by an other party (editor). However, as my slides are based on corresponding book chapters / articles, you can usually find the information I am summarizing on the slides in those sources. Please cite those sources (and in case of the book, page numbers). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Submitting Article for Good Article

Hey group, I am basically done with my theory, function, and how to become/remain a core country sections. Feel free to read them and let me know if you have any recommendations on what I could add. I plan on doing the Effects section tomorrow before 2 pm. I was wondering who was going to submit the article for good article review? I will be away from my computer after 2 pm so I will not be able to do this. Who can? Also, the paper really seems to be coming along great - keep up the good work group! Let me know if anyone needs help! JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea to agree on when and who is going to submit the article to WP:GAN. I'll be posting my pre-GAN review for you shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kayla - Group Comments

Hey everyone. You're article is looking good. I think it's very well cited. Also, the order of your topics flows for the reader. I really like that you added a picture to your article. Great work. Kro14 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Great Divergence Summary

Just looked over the great divergence article. The way they have it organized is by first talking about what led to divergence, the effects of industrialization, and the politics of the west. A little too much reading in their article for my liking though. I think we'll be set once we add some pictures. Who knows how to do that? Sav12 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So, i figured it out...obviously. Is it too many now? Sav12 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No I think it looks good. I especially like the map that has the images that change. I don't think we will need any more though - what do you think? Also I just added the effects section - what do you think? I thought everyone elses sections have been good. I think we will probably be asked to change some things but I think its really come along way! JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we could add a core country map of today's world to the defining core countries section. Your effects section looks good though!!! Sav12 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures/Citations

I think Pat knows how to add the pictures - so whoever wants to try and add them, just look at his section to see the code he used to do this. Also I think Luke wrote the 19th century to present section (unless I am remembering wrong - totally possible) but I would just recommend adding some citations because I think the reviewers will take out information if it is not cited. I think it reads really well though so it would be especially ashame to lose that part. How is everyone else's parts coming along? I think for the Effects section I am just going to summarize everything and use a few examples. That is what it looks like the Semi-periphery article did. Let me know if you have any more thoughts on what I could do for this section.JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello friends! Wow, we sure rock at this! I feel much more comfortable on wikipedia. I also feel proud of you, group. Way to pull through and pull it together. Maybe we could all hold hands in class on Monday? Let me know if this is a possibility...

I'm about to try and do the picture thing. And then I think we should be good to go. HollaAngGor (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Other group suggestion

Hey guys I'm from the periphery group and just wanted to say thanks for helping us with some of your sources. You guys are more than welcome to use ours too once we get a few more up. Also your guys page looks good and has a lot of nice pictures and good content. One suggestion for something to add is who the core countries are today and how the interact with the global market. This could be expanded on as well depending on how much more you guys feel like you want to add to your article. So far it looks great though and that was just one suggestion I thought of.24.3.18.118 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Luke: summary

Hey guys I just finished looking over the other articles. The great divergence looks great, and the peripheries is getting there. I think the great divergence is set up really well. They site a lot and cover a lot of information. After looking at it, it does look a bit cleaner than ours, so I'm thinking we might want to cut a few pictures. Maybe the silk road and the ottoman empire. Right now it seems a little messy in the middle. Just an idea though. It's looking great! I just need to site my section and I think we'll be done for the most part. Good job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LBPearson (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Group Comments

Article looks really good. The use of maps and pictures really tied the whole thing together. I also thought the way that you broke up the different empires by years and had the maps that moved and what not was really great. The only suggestion I would have is to expand a few of the parts but there are still a few days so I'm sure it will get even better. Maybe you could also go over how core countries interact with periphery and semi periphery countries a bit more. You could go into how core countries will use periphery countries for natural resources and things of that nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctn4 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lou Summary/Comments

This page looks great the only thing is that it's not linked to the periphery countries yet. Naboc1 (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Review by Piotrus

subject:

• The lead should be expanded. A proper lead usually has two-three paragraphs, each composed of several sentences. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The lead should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. check
• An overview of some modern core countries is needed (what are the major cores today and why), finishing the history section. This should be coupled with a list of modern cores (like this one)

technical: check

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.check'
• Each sentence, unless it contains uncontroversial, generally known information ("Earth orbits the Sun") should contain an inline reference. There are multiple sentences and even some full paragraphs that are not referenced. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
• When citing sources, in particular books, exact page numbers are needed. There are some book sources cited that are missing a page number.
• A lot of references here look like bare URLs. They seem to link to Google Books. You should transform them from http://books.google.com/books?id=X7s9hvROWjoC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=sociology+core+countries&source=bl&ots=xkRctPKLVL&sig=_kKfeGYVSKBSGxFEHJG-s5ypyT4&hl=en&ei=Olz9S9nlA5TKMeHzzd4H&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=sociology%20core%20countries&f=false to p.218 by making them into proper external links.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.check
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.check
• Images should also try to be spaced out equally and have similar shapes. Currently the middle of the article is very heavy of images, with no images near the beginning and the end.check
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey====Core Countries Throughout History== check
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]</ref>.,</ref>,,
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

Lastly, when you address those concerns, please make a note here. Also, there is a number of valid points and suggestions made by other editors in the discussion above, please reply to them when addressing them (you are allowed to disagree with such suggestions, but if you do, please explain there why you chose not to heed them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Checks made bySav12 (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Julia's Response to the Suggestions/Review

1. I think it would be a good idea to add a section on who the core countries are today and expand on this a little. I visited the Semi-periphery page a lot because there topic is similar and its very well done and they have a section at the bottom with flags in a grid that represents who the core countries are today. Maybe we could do something like this? What does everyone think?
2. As for the maps, I think we should just talk about this today in a group after class for 5 minutes – it may just be easier that way.
3. I would be willing to add more or fix up the lead section. Maybe we should do away with the definition section and place this information in the lead. IF this is okay with everyone, I could have this done by Wednesday. Let me know your thoughts.
4. As far as the citation issues – I say we just fix up our own sections. This would include adding page numbers, correct punctuation, correcting URLs, fixing titles, etc. What does everyone think of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.146.63 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Hey guys, I just submitted the article for good article status. We should have time to go through and address the issues that Piotr pointed out (thanks by the way, that was very helpful) before the reviewers look at it since there is a backlog. Overall I'm happy with what we accomplished for our first time doing this. Keep up the good work. I want that good article status! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LBPearson (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good evening. I am currently working on the lead and, even though all of the info is true, if someone could come up with some references that would be great. Sav12 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Just added some color, how you like them apples?Sav12 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Core countries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. My review should be posted shortly. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them here or at my talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started my review below. You're welcome to work on these issues while I complete the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done for now. Once you've addressed these issues, I'll check for outstanding issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• The lead section (the introduction, before your subheadings) should be at least 2 paragraphs.(Check SV)
• As Piotrus suggested, you should incorporate more links to other articles (Check SV)
• These aren't stubs any more - you can remove the stub tags (CHECK)
• Only the first word of headings should be capitalized (unless a proper noun). Also check on the Manual of Style guidelines for hyphens and dashes(CHECK)
  • No, not checked. You've fixed capitalization, but not the hyphens vs dashes. Make sure you've completely addressed each point before abandoning it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)(Check SV)
• The history section should appear immediately after the definition section (CHECK)
• Avoid one-paragraph subsections and one-sentence paragraphs (Check SV)
• Try reading over each others' sections. Act as reviewers for each other, especially when it comes to issues of prose and grammar. (Check SV)
• Don't use jargon. Wikipedia articles should be written so that a reasonably intelligent high-school student could understand (any specific terms? SV)
• Some sections are over-spaced - leave one line of blank space between text and headings, no more (Check SV)
• "Functions" should be a separate section, maybe after "Qualifiers" (CHECK)
• No external links in article text (Check SV)
• Be consistent - for example, you've got "First World War" and "World War 2" in the same paragraph, the format should be the same (CHECK)
• The EU is not a nation; neither is America, although the US is (CHECK)

Accuracy and verifiability

• Make sure all of your footnotes come immediately after punctuation, without spaces. ".[1]" is correct; "[1]." or ". [1]" is not. (Check)
• Don't use bare URLs in references (Check SV)
• Books need page numbers (Check SV)
• If you use the exact same reference more than once, name it to simplify sourcing. Here's how: the first time the ref appears, write "<ref name="Smith">Smith, John. More ref details.</ref>"; the next time you use the same ref, just write "<ref name="Smith"/>". If the page number is different, you can't use this.(Check SV)
• You must include a minimum of one footnote per paragraph, usually more (except in the lead).
• Make citation format consistent between group members
• Check spelling and grammar in citations (what's a "leviatan"?) (Check SV)
• Book titles should be italicized (Check SV)
• Need complete information for each citation - title, author, publisher, location (if you choose to include it), date, isbn (for books)...

Broad

• The "Key Qualifiers" section could use expansion and clarification
• "Overall" should be deleted and its point incorporated into another section (Check SV)
• Include a brief description of semi-periphery and periphery

Neutrality

• You need to use a more encyclopedic tone - see WP:TONE.
• Avoid using "we" (Check SV)
• Look at WP:WTW - certain words introduce editorial bias and should be used with great care.

Images

• Make sure to spread the images out so that you're not sandwiching text between images. Check out WP:Image tutorial for tips.
• Make sure caption colours are relatively close to the actual colours on the map (Check SV)
• Don't use the same image twice (Check SV)
• First image - description page (click on image to access) gives image date as 2009 (that is when it was edited for softer colors, yet data is from 2008 SV)
• Roman Empire and Mongol Empire maps - what do the other colours indicate? (grady? the rest of the world. The legend for the Mongol map is seen upon clicking on it SV)
• Western Europe map - nominated for deletion due to lack of copyright information. If you can't fix that, I would suggest simply removing the map (CHECK)
• Scar image - download link is dead (Check SV)

Keeping Track of Checklist

I started fixing some of the things that are in the Good Article Checklist. Everything that becomes finished, I am going to put a (CHECK) beside so we can keep track of what needs done.

Prg22 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I went through and fixed all the citations. I will continue working on the other things on the list today. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All my citations now include page numbers. Sav12 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

CITATION FORMAT

Hey group - we do really need to figure out how we are going to cite our references. I guess we should have established this before - oops haha! What does everyone think of this setup:

Author. Book Title (page numbers). City of Publication: Publisher, Year. ISBN Code.

What does everyone think? Also, with the page numbers - Piotr said we could keep one reference for a page span of a maximum of 10 - other than that - start creating new references. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but remember to consider other necessary citations (for encyclopedias, journals, etc), as well as the placement and format of your weblinks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For the web link, have the ISBN Code be the thing the user would click on to access the book or source. Example:

Last name, First name. Book Title (p.1-2). City: Publisher, Year. ISBN 002233455

I just used the citation from MLA - maybe this is what we should go by as the formatting for all citations. Just a thought. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea to standardize citations. Personally I am used to ASA style, but MLA is fine, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How do i not see anything wrong with citations as they are now? Sav12 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a few citations that need to have the URL links constricted. Other than that, all's fine but do add the references to key sentences that are missing them (I added several citation requested tags to them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Format

Hey I was thinking about splitting the definiton section with the lead and the sociological theory section - what do people think of this? I think from a reader's perspective it would make more our paper flow better if it went:

1. Lead
2. Sociological Theory
3. Function
4. History
5. Key Quailifiers (or perhaps combine this with the lead section?)
6. Effects
7. See also
8. References

JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Function comes after History, and Qualifiers must remain a separate section (you can't put stuff in the lead that isn't in the article body). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay well I will work on bettering the lead and add to the Key Qualifiers sections. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Specialized usage

Core countries seems to be a specialized term in a particular system of analysis. That does not come across well in the article. More discussion on the background of the term should be given. Who are its proponents? When was this view popularized? Where is it popular? What criticisms has this viewpoint received? Are there competing models of classification? What are they? Is this a strictly economic definition? According to the lead map, Hong Kong, Singapore, and French Guiana are core countries while China for example is not. Is this correct? Is this way of referring to countries popular in the field of history, sociology, economics, political science, anthropology, in some of the preceding, or none of the preceding? For someone unfamiliar with the term I get the feeling there is not enough context to get a good understanding of it. Lambanog (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the lead and definition make a decent job of presenting the definition and explaining it is part of the world system theory. It also stands to reason that the full definition of classification into core, semi-periphery and periphery should be in that (world-systems) article, not in a subarticle (just like the concept of social class is analyzed in that article, not in the working class, for example). In particular, see the World-systems_approach#Characteristics_of_the_modern_world-system. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Language Translations

Should this page be linked to http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paises_centrales ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.198 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Developments in Post-Cold War Europe

I just saw this article. I think it is very interesting. Could we put it somewhere in the entry? http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9476 PLEASE HELP! --Gironauni (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Core countries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308021951/http://teacher2.smithtown.k12.ny.us/jferrante/APWorld10/Handouts/wallerstein%20overview.pdf to http://teacher2.smithtown.k12.ny.us/jferrante/APWorld10/Handouts/wallerstein%20overview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Imf-advanced-un-least-developed-2008.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)