Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South American countries/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | List of South American countries
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 User:The Rambling Man 10:12, 3 July 2008 [1].

List of South American countries edit

I believe this list meets the FL criteria. My only concern is that it may contain too much information (most other articles have separate articles for population, area, GDP (PPP), etc.). I felt that a comprehensive list of countries should incorporate the basic facts of each country. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't think the text in the table should have a smaller font size than everything else. Perhaps the images, especially the flags, could be smaller to give the text more room.
  • "Other lists" → "See also"? That would conform with WP:LAYOUT better (and place it before References).

Gary King (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Name:
      • I say separate the common name from the official name, and also include the names in the native languages.
        • Well, given how some of these countries have multiple native, or official, languages, it seems best to not to include the native name. I have separated the common name from the official name, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hm, I suppose I can let that slide. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right now, to someone who doesn't know they are dependencies, it looks like "UK" is the official name of the Falklands, and "France" is the official name of French Guiana. So that's another reason these should be separated.
      • French Guiana is not a "dependency" of France; it IS France. No one would ever say that Alaska or Hawaii are dependencies of the United States, and French Guiana's status within France is identical; it is a fundamental part of the republic. So really, the table should include one dependency, and instead of saying "French Guiana", it should say "France", with perhaps "French Guiana" in parentheses (once you get rid of the 'official name in parentheses' bit. Or maybe the other way around. But either way, French Guiana is not a dependency.
        • Oh, I briefly glanced at Dependent territory—missed the entire "French Guiana is not a dependency" thing. French Guiana is still considered a part of South America, so do you think I should move this article to List of South American countries and just make a note of FG's current status? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it should stay like this, since the Falklands are politically and geologically linked with South America. But even more so, France IS a South American country (and an African country, and an Oceanian country, and a North American country... the French got around), so it should definitely be included, just as the United States and Chile are Oceanian countries, and Turkey is both European and Asian. So I suppose it should include just French Guiana, but make it very clear that it is part of France, and the statistics given apply only to the South American portion of France. (Such a distinction isn't needed for Easter Island, since it's politically linked with the mainland as part of a mainland region, I guess) --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to say somewhere in the table that it is a dependency; you cannot rely on coloring alone, due to accessibility reason.
    • The table header doesn't need to say 'area in km2 (sq mi)' when the data itself says km2 and sq mi.
    • For the GDP per capita column, move US$ into the header, and just say $ in the column itself, without repeating the link every time.
    • This is an interesting one, but in a list of countries of Oceania, would we put the United States' GDP for Hawaii, or Hawaii's gross state product? Likewise, should we put France's GDP, or French Guiana's gross regional product? I suppose we should make it clear that the table is including only the South American portions of France.
      • Note added. Is this clear enough? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, though you still have French Guiana noted and shaded as a dependency. :) I don't know what Wikipedia common law on this is, but I don't think it should be counted as one, and more than Hawaii is a dependency of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which brings up another fundamental question - are we only listing information for the portions of the countries in South America? In that case, we would only include French Guiana, but we would have to also exclude Easter Island (an Oceanic part of Chile). I see that you are including Easter Island (courtesy of a footnote), so either you should include the whole of France, or make it very clear that it's being left out. (It makes sense to include one but not the other, since Easter Island is politically part of a mainland Chilean region, but French Guiana is its own department)
    • These are my issues so far. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Most of my suggestions were already mentioned by Golbez above, but I do have a few more:

  • Do you have any websites that could potentially form an "External links" section? If yes, then please make that section.
  • The "See also" section goes before the "Notes" section.
  • Could you please separate the footnotes from the references? It makes it very confusing on the list as to whether I'm about to read a footnote or a citation.
  • Why are the map perspectives different? Why do Argentina and Brazil have a world map while others have portions of the South American map? I think you should be consistent with the perspectives of all of the maps.
  • "South America has an area of approximately 17,840,000 square kilometers (6,890,000 sq mi), or almost 3.5% of the Earth's surface. Its population is more than 380 million, according to estimates of country populations in the The World Factbook." Please cite all of these statements.

I hope that these suggestions will help. Good luck! --Dem393 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way the list looks now! Support --Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Abbreviating GDP per capita to PPP is confusing - can you say "GDP per capita, also called Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)"?
  • Question - you say French Guiana is an " overseas department and region" of France - is that the same as a dependency? You explicitly state the Falklands to be a dependency, but not French Guiana.
    • French Guiana is not a dependency. See my correspondence with Golbez above. I'm still waiting on his reply regarding my proposal to move this page to just "List of South American countries". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its population is more than 380 million" can you put a timeframe on this, say "As of x 2008..."?
  • "South America ranks fourth in area " just make it clear you're talking about continents here.
  • Official language in the table should be language(s).
  • Right align population col.
  • You have a (July 2008 est.) in the heading and then in the same column a single (January 2007 est.) for population. You could do the same with the PPP col since only two aren't 2007 est.
  • No MOS requirement but I'd prefer to see references centrally aligned.
  • "kilometer" in the lead, "kilometre" in the notes. And presumably note E means "square" kilometres?
  • Fix the template so it points directly to this page and not via a redirect.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per cr. 6 of WP:WIAFL. The table has too many columns and it is too widened and messy. Flags should be smaller than they are now.--Crzycheetah 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What resolution are you using? Flags and map sizes have been reduced and I have reduced column widths. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My res. is 1024 x 768. It looks fine now. The only minor concern is that the GDP column heading is too long(for a heading that is), but I don't see how it can be improved. Maybe move the contents of the parentheses to the footnote? --Crzycheetah 23:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A more engaging first sentence is needed, rather than a straight repetition of the article title
  • I'd prefer to see the table header for area state km/sq miles, and remove it from each cell
  • No need for the dollar sign in the GDP column, cos you already say it's in US dollars.
  • How come two different style maps are used? One beige and red, the other grey and green?
  • Perhaps you could include a footnote to say that the Population is an estimate from 2008, except where stated otherwise, and also put all that extra GDP info in a footnote, which would shorten the height of the table headers

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, unless I'm howled down by more experienced reviewers. My chief concern is that it's kinda workaday, too easy, and sacrifices a lot of usefulness, to put together this info: constructing the table was probably 30 minutes' work. What would add value to this list is the provision of another one or two tables that give more information for comparison. Like notional GDP, which will show how undervalued or overvalued a currency it; like form of government; like Quality of Life index; like demographic profile (um ... isn't there a single ratio of below and above 25 years of age in the UN database? You could have a basic info table first, then a demographic one, then an economic one? But your choice. Therefore, I have to say that I think it doesn't yet meet our primary requirement, that "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." I see other nominations that are much more useful.
  • GDP PPP is the way you'd say it, as opposed to GDP notional value. Overlinked (I've removed some culprits).
  • Cr 2, inadequate lead. I mean, what about the larger context of how so many languages came to be spoken there? A sense of the chronological span of its invasion by Europeans, and its independence in the 20th century. Why it's so fragmented into little nation states (Columbia used to be three countries until the mid-1800s, I think). For an ordinary list, it's fine; for a featured list, I want more. TONY (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list didn't take me 30 minutes to create (see the article history). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, it was a throwaway line, not well-chosen. I still think the scope is too small and wastes potential to be a really interesting collection of data. TONY (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←List of countries does contain lots of info, and is partly excused because it has corralled a huge number of items into a list. It's still a pity that it chooses flags (pretty meaningless) above more useful, interesting info. South America is much smaller, and to be "among our best work" begs for an interesting combination of data criteria that allows readers to compare the countries in useful ways (even unique ways, but that would be a stroke of luck if you came upon a combination of data that isn't out there already). I guess I'd like to encourage WPians to nominate for high status lists that are deeper in terms of data mining. Frankly, the List of South American countries by GDP (PPP) per capita needs to be merged into this one and combined with fascinating comparative data, nominal GDP of course, but housing, telephone and car ownership, size of public sector in the economy—I don't know, but that's one of the enjoyable tasks of creating a list, I think: skimming around for combinations of data that show the expected and unexpected associations. OECD and CIA Factbook should give a good foundation, and there's so much to select from that the very filtering of the criteria is a valuable contribution in a WP list. And the lead! TONY (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has made some interesting suggestions. In my opinion, one way of thinking of the list is a summary of the information found in the infoboxes of each country's article. Also, I think that the list has grown beyond simply a table by now; I suggest using a separate level 3 heading for each country and then listing the information below it. Something like what I have posted on this FLC's talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_South_American_countries#Example_of_an_entry. Gary King (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know it's bordering on pedantry, but I'm still not entirely happy with the labelling of French Guiana as "not a country." France is a country; French Guiana is part of it. If this were a list of the countries in Europe, would you equally say Metropolitan France was not a country, because France extends beyond Europe? Perhaps a better terminology would be "French Guiana is part of a predominantly European country." It's a delicate thing which appears to have not been dealt with yet on Wikipedia...? And likewise, maybe "France" should be listed first in the table, with "French Guiana" in parentheses... since this is a list of countries, then France is the country, and French Guiana is the part of that country actually within the scope of the list... --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now (not yet ready for FL status) and response to Nishkid64's last question:
    • Please get rid of the sentence that says "The Falkland Islands and French Guiana, which are not countries themselves, are highlighted with a cyan background and marked with an asterisk in the table." That's much too self-referential for a lead section; save that kind of information for a table footnote or table legend.
    • Regarding that cyan background and asterisk... You explain the cyan background in the legend, so the text explanation is not needed. As for the asterisks, I find them off-putting because the asterisk doesn't point to a footnote. I suggest deleting the asterisks.
      • Just a comment, but there has to be some indicator in actual text; for accessibility reasons we can't rely on color alone to convey information. --Golbez (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right. When I made the comment above, I was assuming that the following item would take care of that need, in that the table would clearly indicate that these places are not sovereign countries. --Orlady (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for what to put under "Form of government", for the Falkland Islands say "UK overseas territory and dependency, also claimed by Argentina" and for French Guiana say "overseas department and region of France".
    • I'd like to see a separate "Notes" section at the bottom of each table that has lettered notes, instead of clumping them all at the end of the article.
    • The note letters should be sequential. That is, the first note in the first table should be "A", the second note should be "B," the last note in the last table should be "H", etc.
    • To minimize confusion, please don't use the same word "Notes" for the lettered notes and the right-hand column headings which link to numbered references. I suggest that you either (1) call the lettered notes "Footnotes" or (2) change the right-hand column title to "References", but there might be an even better solution.
    • I suggest that you use a lettered note (or footnote) to indicate that Argentina calls the Falkland Islands "Islas Malvinas." When that is done, I think you could delete the sentence "The Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory and dependency, which is also claimed by Argentina as the Islas Malvinas,[2] while French Guiana is an overseas department and region of France" from the lead section.
    • The abbreviated titles in the "See also" list are odd. Spell out the full names of the other articles.
    • Also, now that most of the contents of these other articles are included here, why not add population density to the "Demographics and geography" table and add a "GDP PPP" column to the "Economic statistics" table?

--Orlady (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • A general note: The article is currently being revamped to address Tony1's concerns. I still have to add a number of columns before I can call this table complete. I'll fix the kinks out within the next day or two. Thank you for your patience. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The list is unstable, as there is question whether Aruba, Trinidad and Tobago, et.al. should be on the list. I've done some work on the France issue, still not entirely happy with it but it's there to work with. --Golbez (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue was already resolved. Aruba, TT and Netherland Antilles were on the list before I started working on it. These sovereign states are sometimes considered part of South America, so I think it's appropriate to include them in the table, with a note indicating their status. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But they aren't in the table... And if they are put there, then the intro needs to be changed to reflect just whose definition of South America is being used. --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is being revamped anyway. See the article history. It's changed signficantly since the start of this FAC. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is precisely why it needs to be refined and stabilized before the FLC can continue. --Golbez (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I'm in the process of doing that. By the way, the FLC's closed now. TRM archived it hours ago, apparently. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Er... oh. Well then, carry on. :) ... Shouldn't this have been moved to an archive then? --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_South_American_countries/archive1&oldid=1146775369"