Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of chemical arms control agreements/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [1].

List of chemical arms control agreements

edit
Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)
Toolbox

I believe this meets all the standards and requirements of an FL. It's been reviewed by another editor over at WP:MIL and assigned a B-class rating, and it is comprehensive, accurate and referenced. Cool3 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5
  • I believe that the list as a whole would be more effective as a sortable and complete list, rather than mini-lists. Therefore, I suggest:
  • Combining the internal paragraphs into the lead
  • Combining the mini-lists into a complete and sortable single unit
    Well, let's see what others think. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's better to split up the tables. The three groupings really represent analytically distinct categories, and most of the literature in the field draws clear distinctions for three phases of chemical arms-control as is done here. The first phase is pre-WWI, the second interwar, and the third is sometimes referred to as Post WWII as I've done here, but other authors will draw the distinction more as the result of Yemen and Vietnam, as they really provided the impetus for a new round of arms control. In any case, these are different phases.
    It's also of great analytical significance, that essentially all of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 chemical arms control efforts failed (more or less), while all of the Phase 3 agreements are still operating. In other words, there are enough differences in the generations of chemical arms control to justify separate groupings.
  • All of these things can be explicated in the lead, especially since FLs are becoming increasingly prose-conscious. I think that if we are presenting this as a "list of" rather than "lists of" (which wouldn't make sense anyway), it should be one list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I respectfully beg to differ. Many historical lists are sectioned off by period. For example, Timeline of prehistoric Scotland (not the best example, I just happened to be looking at it earlier). I really don't see what's gained by creating a mega-table. Personally, I think the present formulation with an introduction to each section is much clearer. Cool3 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of World War I and World War II would be preferred since these are the names of the articles, rather than World War One and Two, respectively.
    Changed

I would like to see these changes made and then return to review the article in that format. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment (KV5)
  • "In one survey of Americans, 367,000 favored banning chemical warfare while only 17 supported its continuation in the future." - checked this statistic against the reference, should be 19, not 17
    Thanks for catching that. Must have hit the wrong key when I was typing it in.

Future comments will be made under this header once the above issues are handled. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "References" subheaders shouldn't be level-3 headers; rather, they should be section headers, created with semicolons (as shown above "Additional comment (KV5)"). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed.
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment

  • Shouldn't World War One be written as World War I? (same for World War Two)
    Changed
    What about those in the paragraphs?—Chris! ct 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally missed those, changed now. Thanks.
  • While this is not required, I think items in Nature of prohibition column shouldn't be center aligned.
    Any particular reason why?
    It just my preference. You don't have to do that, I guess.—Chris! ct 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else have an opinion on this?
I have no problem with the whole thing being centered, but I don't see the need for the number column; they are in chronological order so I think that's sufficient. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should set the width for each column, so that the Parties or the Agreement columns can have more room.
    I wasn't aware you could set a column width. Would someone be so kind as to tell me how? Thanks.
    I set the width for you.—Chris! ct 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!
  • Is there a reason why the table is not sortable?
    Well, as the tables exist now, they each have only 4 entries. I saw no reason for sorting four entries. If the tables are combined into one big one, I would make it sortable.
  • Ref 10 and 25 need publisher info and access date
    Done.
  • Just notice this, please change the name of the link to small case in note 4 even if the source capitaizes its title
    Done.

—Chris! ct 21:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Terms should only be linked the first time they are mentioned, not multiple times.
    Overlinking removed, although I've left the names of the agreements linked in the tables even if they were mentioned in the lead as it seems more helpful. They can be delinked if needed.
  • Cites should go after puncuation, not before.
    Found and corrected one instance of this, did you see any more?
  • "that these weapons....are abominable" - the ellipse should consist of three dots not four, and a non-breaking space (&nbsp) is required between "weapons" and the ellipse.
    Done.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments from Hassocks (Two more added: Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
  • I spotted one typo: "Strasbourg Agreeements"
    Fixed
  • Also some instances of "p." instead of "pp." in the references.
    Fixed
  • Ref [22] (Coleman 152–153) needs a dash instead of a hyphen.
    Fixed
  • "and chemical arms control agreements in particular gained renewed support": I think this should have a comma after "particular".
    Good catch, fixed.
  • Ref [27] (Croddy 176-177) needs a dash instead of a hyphen.
  • Per The Rambling Man, "Forbid" → "Forbade" to keep tenses consistent.
  • As to whether the table should be split or single, both approaches have advantages, but I would tend towards having a single table, with the three sections of prose (currently under the headers) being combined into either an extended lead or a new paragraph under a separate header below the lead. I don't have a strong preference for this, though.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "that these weapons ...are abominable,"-->"that these weapons ...are abominable", (see WP:PUNC)
    Changed.
  • Do we really need to link France in the lead? Same with chemistry, which I would pipe link to History of chemistry.
    Piped to History of Chemistry. We don't have to link France, and if someone else delinks, I won't relink, but I wouldn't consider the lead overlinked, and it's something that a reader might plausibly click on.
  • More WP:PUNC: "to abstain from the use of projectiles the sole objective of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."-->"to abstain from the use of projectiles the sole objective of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases".
    Changed.
  • "Iran-Iraq War" En dash (multiple occurences).
    Changed.
  • "while only 19 supported" Let the stats speak for themselves.
    Alright, I suppose that this is technically what WP:WTA demands.
  • Watch your logical punctuation in the notes also.
  • "due to the fact that"-->because
    Wording changed to "as"
  • Any reason why the tables can't be made sortable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tables are now sortable. Cool3 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
    • I too would prefer a single table.
      I'm not quite sure if there's a consensus for this here, but things seem to be moving in that direction, so I'll say something about it. Personally, I think a single table is a horrible idea and I'm not going to change the article myself. Of course no one owns the article, so if someone else makes the change, so be it, I'm not going to revert or start an edit war. That said, if someone feels strongly enough about this, I invite them to change it. If no one has a strong opinion, then I'd be very happy for it to stay as separate tables. I'd also be quite happy to carry on further discussion about this on the article's talk page, which to me seems a more appropriate venue for this particular debate. Cool3 (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no need for the # column, nor for the "Nature.." and "Ref" and "Parties" cols to be sortable as they're free text.
      Changed no longer sortable. I see some value to sorting the "Parties" column, but I've leave that up to others.
      Parties didn't sort correctly anyway... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For several centuries..." is a little too vague for my liking, particularly as an introductory sentence to the whole list.
      It carries the right message. Sure you could say since 1675, but it lacks the message conveyed by "for several centuries". It's really a style thing.
      Agreed it's a style issue, but it the lead does have a whole vagueness about it, and this is just one example, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image could be made larger, I believe up to 300px is still acceptable per MOS for a lead image.
      Size increased
    • "In the several centuries..." still not blown away by "several" here.
      Deliberately vague timeframe. Chemistry advanced over time. There's not some specific point when chemistry went from being primitive to advanced. It was a gradually process. I'd be open to "Over the next two hundred years", but really I think that implies an unjustified specificity.
    • "still remains the largest case of chemical warfare" is this cited anywhere?
      That's covered by the cite at the end of the next sentence.
    • "no significant instances of their use" what criteria is used to judge "significant" in this context?
      Those of essentially every scholar every to write about the issue. It's inaccurate to say there were zero instances. In fact there were several small-scale episodes and accidental dispersals of chemical agents. There was, however, no deliberate large-scale or systematic use and no significant use. If you'd like, I can replace that with a quote to that effect, but this is a point in which 100% of scholars are in agreement, and most use similar wording to "no significant use"
    • Do we know who was intended to be parties to the Brussels convention? And the other agreements which weren't ratified?
      The whole world. Seriously. If they had entered into force, they would have been open for signature to any country. In practice, success probably would have come in the form of 30-40 states parties (like the Hague Convention) but that's highly speculative.
      I think a note to that effect would be instructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the past tense of forbid is forbade.
      You're quite right. Thanks for pointing that out.
    • "A proposed expansion of the Geneva Protocol to provide a precise definition of chemical warfare and prohibit chemical warfare against states who had not signed the Protocol." does not read grammatically correctly to me.
      I've changed the wording. I don't think there was anything wrong with it per se, but all of the other entries begin with a verb and that one started with a noun. Now it starts with a verb.
    • I would move the "books cited" up as a subsection called "General references" and then the specific pages you reference into a subsection called "Specific references".
      Done
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have now, by popular demand, created a unified table and merged the remaining text into the lead section of the article. The lead is a bit long now, but I think it's acceptable and we didn't really lose any information in the transition. Cool3 (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wow, that image is depressing. It's not a big deal, but isn't the image a little out of place though? After all, it's a list of chemical arms control agreements, not chemical arms attacks. Also, would it be possible to create a stub on the Brussels Declaration? It's not a requirement, but it would make the list more complete. -- Scorpion0422 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree the image is depressing. I looked long and hard for an image that would be more agreementish, such as a signing ceremony for one of the agreements or something, but I couldn't find any, so I went with one an already uploaded image pertaining to chemical warfare. If anyone has better ideas for an image, please be bold. Cool3 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2009 (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_chemical_arms_control_agreements/archive1&oldid=1216972278"