Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly edit

Self-nom. After years of edits, this article looks about ready for featured status. Captain Zyrain 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Feature this. --Mac 09:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it meet #1e Stable, and the low standards that it sets. Learnedo 01:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support featured article status. Tfleming 03:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Change to neutral. 2 (MOS breaches).

  • Stubby paragraphing makes an awful, disjointed read. Look at the History section, for example. You can probably remove the bullets and make normal paras in "Apportionment of votes".
    •  Done Bullets have been removed and now all paras have at least three sentences. Sarsaparilla 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The" is missing before "direct election" in the lead, BTW.
  • Doesn't MOS insist on reference numbers after the final punctuation? It's very ungainly at the moment.
  • "We the peoples . . ." I think MOS says to use just three normal periods rather than this space-filled thing.
  • Graph: why the .00 on all of the y-axis values? One man would be better as person, if you made the graph yourself.
    •  Done Is there any way to upload Excel or OpenOffice files to Wikipedia so that it will be easier for future users to redo/update as the data changes? Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence, not title case in titles.
  • MOS says not to italicise a quote just because it's a quote. Tony (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article still has numerous MOS issues and lists that could be converted to prose. The External links farm needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT, the citations are not fully and correctly completed and formatted (see WP:CITE/ES), See also is lengthy and many of those articles should be worked into the text or eliminated (see WP:GTL), there is incorrect bolding in the text (WP:MOSBOLD), the Support section could be converted to compelling prose, dates are not correctly formatted (see WP:MOSDATE, for example, UNA-USA members also criticized the idea at their June 26-28, 2003 national forum ...), footnote placement is not correct (see WP:FN but I will fix those this time), the Opposition and Support section headings don't conform to WP:MSH, and there are external jumps to websites imbedded in the text (external websites belong in External links or references). Please find someone you can work with to bring these issues to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done (I think.) The EL's have been completely eliminated (all were either redundant or in violation of WP:EL); See also has been pared down; bolding has been corrected; support and opposition sections have been fixed and combined into one; dates have been fixed; and the embedded external link has been fixed. I added the retrieved on dates and attempted to follow examples from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style and Template:Cite web Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still significant problems here. I struck some items; there was some dramatic misunderstanding on WP:MOSDATE, so I reformatted all of your dates. Please be sure to have a look at WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOSNUM and WP:CITE/ES. The citations are still off; several are missing publishers, there is an uncited direct quote, one BBC citation I clicked on didn't lead to the sourse specified (BBC Poll: Why Democracy?, BBC, August 2007. led to a different October 2007 article), and some of the titles specified in the citations aren't to the correct article title. This article is much improved over what first appeared here; if you get the sourcing cleaned up perhaps others will more closely examine the text for content issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're talking about Schwartzberg's quote, I went ahead and put the source. With some of those items that have now been tagged "citation needed," I had put the citation at the end of the para because there were several facts in that para derived from the same source. I fixed the BBC poll cite. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking closer now at the content, this article has serious 1c issues; unattributed opinion, weasle words, uncited direct quotes, and an important lack of citation and attribution throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, serious 1c and 2 issues, will leave this one to Raul's decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done (with everything tagged). I'm having a bit of trouble getting the refs the way you want them. Feel free to tag more stuff if you want. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dramatically improved. A few things: can you recast this sentence to avoid starting the sentence with a number (19.1% responded "Very unlikely – it is a bad idea ... ) The lead makes no mention of opposition, while it does mention support. Please summarize opposing viewpoint to the lead, for balance. And, I think the lead is an appropriate size now, but it could use some paragraphs, instead of being one big chunk of text. Is is possible to re-locate that graph somewhere else, because the layout is jarring having the graph right above the table. If not, relocate the table? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done I moved the table to the right, which looks okay on my 22" WSXGA+. Let me know if that's unacceptable. Sarsaparilla (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops, one more problem; see WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBOLD, the bolded words in the title line shouldn't be linked; you have to find a way to link those later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You got the bolded words in the lead, but it looks like you missed my comment right above that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Improving! One last issue. This sentence in the lead is what Tony1 (talk · contribs) calls a snake that needs chopping, by the time I get to the end of the sentence, I forget where it started :-)) "Cold War tensions limited international cooperation in UN reform among other areas, but during that period and the subsequent years, a great number of changes took place that affected the environment for UN Parliamentary Assembly proposals in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse." Perhaps it's time to ask Tony to revisit his Oppose and look at the prose? I'm afraid he may find similar issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) continued review: Why are solo years linked in the lead? (See WP:MOSDATE.) Per WP:OVERLINKing, does a common term known to most English speakers like World War II need to be linked? I've struck my oppose, since my more serious concerns about attribution and POV have been addressed, but since this is a completely rewritten article from what appeared here months ago, I hope it will receive additional content review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hmm, where will I find more editors to review this article? Wait, I notice there are still some wikiprojects I haven't contacted... Anyway, I fixed those dates and wikilinks. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature it . Thought It was very well done. Sarsaparilla hasdone a great job editing and correcting all the differences of opinions. Callelinea (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, very well done article after much hard editing. Feature it. (♠Taifarious1♠) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose awarding it feature status. The introduction has way too much information. Style suggests that an international parliament is a lot more closer to implementation than what it really is. Kransky (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose unless all the tags are dealt with and there is something negative: I can't find criticism of the idea in this article, if it was perfect it would have been done already. Must be some government complaining about cost, competition with other organs, problem of dictatorships or concerns about sovereignty. There also seems little on background, such as the dictator club talked about on the talk page- could do more with that kind of politics. - J Logan t: 09:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Tags have been dealt with. Sources for some content could not be found and that content was accordingly removed. Citations for various "weasel" or "fact"-tagged stuff were added. As for the dictator club stuff, those same potential arguments against a UN Parliamentary Assembly could be used against the UN in general, which includes China and other undemocratic states on the UN Security Council and used to include them on human rights councils. I don't see those being raised too much about the UNPA but if you can find them, please include them. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still find it biased in favour of the idea, there is no critique or opposing argument or even a mention of any problems like gaining turnout, financing or how can it be democratic when not all members are democracies? - J Logan t: 09:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done I added a section dealing with the latter two issues. Part of the problem with finding info on those other subjects may be that the UNPA proposal is basically in the same stage of development as the International Criminal Court prior to promulgation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998, when it began appearing on conservatives' radar screen. The opposition just hasn't organized in earnest yet. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate that, so while I still think there is more to be said the lack of material makes it difficult to write about. Regardless, writing does sound very pro but its not big deal, I'm striking my oppose. Support.
  • Objection I don't like it, it's got numerous style issues - a total of two pictures - really extremely lacking context in terms of what the UN has been- and seems POV'ed towards "global democracy activism"...
    "They have recently gained traction amidst increasing globalization, as national parliamentarians and citizens' groups use the Internet to organize activists and seek to counter the growing influence of unelected international bureaucracies." sounds heavily POV, it is unreferenced, it seems OR, -
    --Keerllston 13:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Added a pic, and some more context about UN history. Got rid of that sentence you objected to. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection Sufficiently Adressed--Keerllston 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature it. While it might not be outstanding among featured articles on other subjects, it is one of the best among UN-related articles, which are often of somewhat embarrassing quality. That makes the bar a little lower, in my opinion. Anything to draw attention into this area is good, if only to start setting standards. The subject itself is also very important and timely.Goatchurch (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature it - I think Goatchurch makes a good comment on how we should approach this. I think a photograph of the Assembly in session would be a very good improvement, but I'm aware of how difficult that would be to source (imagery cannot be taken by members of the public, IIRC), so it shouldn't be used as an unreasonable stopper. James F. (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50 editors and counting contacted on talk pages, [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha, I figured someone would eventually notice that. For awhile there I was having difficulty getting ppl to review the article so I started contacting people on the United Nations, International relations, and International law wikiprojects. It wasn't intended necessarily to influence the result in favor of FA status, though; invariably there is also a possibility that it will draw more Oppose votes, but those provide useful suggestions too so in the end I think it was helpful. Thank you in particular, SandyGeorgia, for taking the time to look at the article, tag those issues and provide tips. Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like it noted here that I 110% do not approve of contacting over 50 editors - in my opinion, that's shamelessly trying to obtain support votes. Not commendable in any way. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deeply regret this grave offense to your sensibilities. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just commenting, since the article sat here neglected for two months with no one addressing the issues, and suddenly is getting support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature this article - I highly support this one...A very intriguing topic, good work - keep chillin'n (Tparker393 (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above is the user's first edit since August 24, 2006, what would make the first thing he does in 16 months support this :\ M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my instant message to him the other day saying "Hey, can you review this article," his passion for UN- and parliamentary assembly-related topics may also have contributed to the impetus by which he sprang into action. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that this article is remiscient in lacking the context or "background" or "big picture"
    -in terms of democracy- democracy has basically existed in Norsemandy and Greece- not really a global thing... not really a real thing... how many countries are truly democracies nowadays anyway and not "hybrid systems" or similar?
    - in terms of UN / UN efficiency-... While it would take 1/3 of the votes in the current UN [populous countries] are not very well represented in the general assembly they generally are[there is a compensations] in terms of veto power - China, India (i believe), USA (among others) have veto over resolutions... -and any parliamentary democratic organization would fall prey to the same/similar obstacles
    --Keerllston 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature it a very well-done article --dotDarkCloud (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I like it and I want to support it
    Idealistic tone rather than encyclopedic register. Uncomprehensive in terms of democracy within UN and similar multinational diplomatic organizations. Organization leaves to be desired in such as "objections" and "support and opposition" being unconnected headings within the article.
    --Keerllston 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I merged the "objections" and "support and opposition" into new sections in accordance with Talk:United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#Pro_.26_Con. I need some examples of what you mean by idealistic tone. I also don't understand what you mean by "Uncomprehensive in terms of democracy within UN and similar multinational diplomatic organizations." Are you talking about the democratic nature of the governments of member states, or of the international organizations themselves? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I personally strongly support the UNPA creation, I'm not sure it is a FA standard or could be for the near future. The guidelines state:

A featured article ... has the following attributes:

It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.

Comprehensive? Very little has been published analysing the pros, cons, or implications of having a UNPA. Major issues - big vs. small countries, rich vs. poor, democratic vs autocratic, powers, relationship with other UN agencies etc. have not even been touched on.
 Done Enough has been published to write a sufficiently sourced article covering the major points. I will keep adding stuff as deficiencies are pointed out. But I thought the big vs. small issue was touched on in United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#Apportionment_of_votes? And democratic vs. autocratic touched on in United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#Legitimacy and accountability? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources

Many of the value statements are unsourced.
 Done I added sources to pretty much everything and removed statements that could not be sourced. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;

Not very concise at the moment.
 Done Rewritten. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);

Not much of a structure at the moment.
 Done I restructured it. Do you have any specific recommendations. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.

Could do with mroe diagrams, photographs etc.
 Done I added a few pics. More have been requested from CEUNPA. I am waiting to hear back. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is FA really the way to go with this? Why not have a peer review or go for GA instead? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can get to FA; just keep the comments coming and I will keep improving it. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for review of this comment left 12-13-07. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature it - It's a pretty good article. Keep working on it and it will get even better. Nice job indeed.--Andronicus92 09:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, this page has a strange feel to it. All of these unusually worded declarations "Feature it", etc, appear to have been posted by people suddenly dropping in for the first time. The article is quite well-written. Tony (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Article- Nice article, but something is still missing, dunno what? Probably more photos and charts. But I vote for it!--Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, much improved- I am amazed at the speed of your editing.
    Object Organization problems remain... no sub-headings. I feel it now has within reached compherensibility within the context of UN but not in the context of "democracy" or global centralized legislation. It would definitely be a huge step in both and it is would be a huge development of both. oh - "Basic implementation options" could be better named "implementation" or "ratification" or ... (IPU not IPA) -
    --Keerllston 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I was having trouble figuring out what headings to group sub-headings under. I had thought of grouping them under Controversial issues and Implementation details, but most subjects (e.g. Powers) fall under both. See Talk:United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#Structure.2C_cont.27d. However, subheadings might not be necessary; see, for instance, Senate of Canada, which is a featured article with a mostly "flat" hierarchy. If you want a different hierarchy, please provide some suggestions because I'm at a loss. In reference to the global legislating thing, I guess I could compare it to failed proposals such as the binding triad. I have done so. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • D - let me see - let me provide suggestions for better organization: "Implementation rename to "Possible ratification" or similar - history to "history of proposals" - Group under "Possible Implementation" the different versions it could be, the different ways it could be implemented, funding, etc...
        while subheadings might not be necessary - they are definitely good if done well.
        I hope I have not been frustratingly unclear - I often am, and if I have been I am sorry - it has not been my intention.
        --Keerllston 13:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the organization is OK as is but feel free to be bold if you want to try something else. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification of Objection: I think I finally know what I meant - I meant that the UNPA is a government - the UN today is a diplomatic organization. This is not substantially in the article - a comprehensive version would.--Keerllston 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily true. NATO, OSCE and the Council of Europe have parliamentary assemblies, but they are not governments. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • D ahh... so instead of UNPA is a parliamenobably would be called tary assembly - not a government - (are there governments whose legislative branches are parliamentary assemblies?) - I think we understand each other... there's a history here that is not in the article that is necessary for comprehensiveness. This would be the biggest - in fact would be a global - parliamentary assembly. Some note of the history of parliamentary assemblies is necessary therefore in order to achieve comprehensiveness. (completely separate point from that of article organization)--Keerllston 13:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done I agree that more coverage of other parliamentary assemblies was needed, so I added some info on them and a sidebar. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose UNPA or IPU or UNGA or ... - bizzare concentration on hypothetical existence general global parliamentary assembly which is not UNPA (necessarily) despite it's title of debatable likeliness!--Keerllston 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's a misunderstanding here. UNGA is the UN General Assembly. IPU is the Inter-Parliamentary Union which is, perhaps, the closest thing we have now to a UNPA, but its membership is smaller than the UN's and apparently "IPU conducts almost all of its meetings behind closed doors" (see http://tonyfleming.org/index.php?paged=2 ); as a public body, the UNPA would presumably be more open. A UNPA probably would be called "UN Parliamentary Assembly" or something similar, as that would follow the precedent of other international organizations' parliamentary assemblies, and that is the terminology used by the CEUNPA and many other sources, so it seems like a pretty reasonable article title. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly&oldid=1146554708"