Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Brazilian federative units by Human Development Index/archive1

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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Brazilian federative units by Human Development Index edit

Featured list candidates/List of Brazilian federative units by Human Development Index/archive1

Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 23:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this list is superior to similar lists of country subdivisions in several aspects. It is well organized and informative and I think it meets the FL criteria. Felipe Menegaz 23:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting list but I almost want to see the global index for Brazil in the middle of the table (asides from the average one at the bottom). Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I didn't add it to the list is that the figures for Brazil on the local report (the average) are different from the global report. So I decided to just mention the global index on the lead, while leaving a footnote explaining the discrepancy. Felipe Menegaz 06:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good list well presented. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Godot13

Comments-The prose is very fluid and well written. The graphics are well done, and table construction is solid. A few quick questions/comments –

It consists of a number between 0 and 1, comprising five tiers of human development—high or very high, medium, low or very low—wherein the development is considered higher when closer to 1. It might read better if the description of the tiers mirrored the direction of the numerical rank: …between 0 and 1…development – very low, low, medium, high, or very high.

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A concern – you state that although it has the same three dimensions of the global HDI—education, income and longevity—it adapts the global methodology to the Brazilian context and the availability of national indicators. Does this mean that Brazil uses different criteria than the global measure? If so, it could be a stretch to compare Federative unit HDI with global HDI of other countries. I just noticed “a” under Notes. The limitation (and use of caution) is acknowledged.
Is there a reason that the rank is a separate table from the rest of the data?

Since there are many columns, a separate rank table is helpful when sorting. If the rank was attached to one of the columns (let's say, the HDI figures for 2010), the reader would have a lot of trouble to see the ranking when sorting the figures for 1991, with changed positions. Felipe Menegaz 22:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per Harrias below, the rank column is useless if not attached to the table itself.-Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion (not knowing how much work could potentially be involved) – perhaps the three graphic images of Brazil could be placed side by side with the text at the far end so as not to leave such a vast expanse in the middle? Again, nice work.-Godot13 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could make it horizontal, but I think the current arrangement is the best one. The maps complete the table when side-by-side. If horizontal and put before the table, it kind of drives attention away from the list, in my opinion. Felipe Menegaz 22:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess when displayed properly on the screen, the vertical format works. However, the points below need to be resolved.-Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you should clarify. When you say that in 1991, Piaul's HDI was comparable to Bangladesh, is it the Bangladesh HDI of 1991 or today?—indopug (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was compared to the 1990 figures provided by the 2013 Human Development Report. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the moment, this list appears to be a significant distance from being featured:

The separate "Rank" table doesn't line up with the main table, rendering it useless.
- In my browser it lines up perfectly, but I made little adjustments. Could you confirm if it is still not lined-up? Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It still doesn't line up for me. Harrias ^talk 20:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The rank should be one column of the whole table, not a separate table. You can make that one column non-sortable.-Godot13 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright. It's done. Felipe Menegaz 01:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The table uses a flag without the name of the country, in contravention of MOS:FLAG, and tool-tips to provide information, in contravention of MOS:ACCESS.

See below. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The three maps, and all of the flags are lacking alt text, per WP:ALT.

See below. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:NUM, use commas, not periods to group digits in large number (5,565 Brazilian municipalities, rather than 5.565 Brazilian municipalities, for example.)

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How the comparable country selected? Harrias ^talk 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were so many problems and controversy regarding the comparison with countries, I decided to remove it. Tool-tips were used due to width issues. The comparison was made in the selected years according to the 2013 Human Development Report, which provides updated numbers for a historical series beginning in 1980. The countries with the closest HDI value to the Federative unit in case was displayed. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick oppose

Legend isn't compliant with WP:ACCESS, using colour alone to differentiate between Very high, high, etc.
- To be fair here, the numbers provide the differentiation, the colour only highlights it. Harrias ^talk 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I thought that might be the case, better safe than sorry. Thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HDI sorting doesn't work.

Well, I don't understand. It works fine for me. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order the numbers in the first column read 27, 26, 24, 25... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That occurs due to a tie between Pará and Piauí. While the rank was separated, the tie wasn't discriminated. Just corrected it. Felipe Menegaz 16:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check image captions, complete sentences need a full stop.

Since English is not my native language, I'm not sure wether sentences are complete or not. I would like to ask assistance on this. Anyway, I added full stops to both captions, presuming they're complete. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would split refs in two using {{reflist|30em}}

Done. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Human Development Atlas or Human Development Atlas? Be consistent.

Done. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"subindices of Education, Income and Longevity" why the overcapitalisation?

The primary reason was to facilitate identification with the abbreviations. If needed, can be easily changed. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple page refs should be pp. not p.

Done. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.