Wikipedia:Peer review/United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories/archive1

United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that, despite my frequent reference to it both on and off Wikia, it was still unassessed by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Wikipedia:Assessment is a process by which your edits can become more valued. I think everyone's cumulative effect was to make this a great list that concerns a very important topic. It is far from well known that even in the 21st century so many territories with so much land, most notably in Western Sahara, have missed out the most basic self-determination. In fact, I think this is well on its way to becoming one of the Wikipedia:Featured lists and I want other editors to comment on how well it fits Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. I am a newbie to the assessment process, so I'm starting with baby steps.

Thanks, :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

try and find a way to bold the title in the lead sentence. "The United Nations maintains a list of territories that do not govern themselves/list of Non-Self-Governing territories rather than having it bolded so far down in the lead.
"only permenantly inhabited territories are included in this list" is there an example of a territory that thus falls out of this remit that can further expand this brief point?
Perhaps a stat in the image caption on the percentage of these territories that are in Africa if possible?
the History section needs more citations
"The list remains controversial." --> ^{[citation needed]} <-- :)
More citations int he restof the criticism section also.
Wikilink United Kingdom in the list section if not done so already above (couldn't find it)
Also move the British overseas territory like to the first mention in St. Helena
"Falkland Islands (claimed by Argentina)" this might cause some division, you may wish to elaborate "claimed" or wikilink it to the article on the claim, it seems to simplify what is a fairly complicated situation.
"on change of status" is mentioned many times in the former entries section, can this be elaborated on somewhere as to what this involves, rather than being a possible catch-many phrase for a number of different situations? I see you have in some cases but not all.
could wikilink the "independence" of many of them to articles on their independence or wars of independence, for example the Mozambican War of Independence.
Split "sources" and "footnotes" into two different sections.
Try to uniform the references into something like author, title/url, date of publication, retrieved on.... or something similar, and with number 6 if possible try to re-write so it is not all one big blue URL link.
See also could be before the refs and sources sections. I personally list them as see also, notes, references (printed and website) then external links
are their any more categories? Or sub categories of "United Nations"

That's all I can see for now, I hope this helps. Please keep in mind that I've only talked about areas that I feel could be tweaked, this doesn't mean I don't think it is a good article, I do. SGGH ^speak! 10:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the current list, Western Sahara is the only territory in Africa and St. Helena, almost halfway to South America, is the only territory off the coast of Africa. Counting these current (red) ones, I don't see a reason for a specifically African % stat image caption. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard^Bloom

Aside from what SGGH said, I have a few concerns with the references:

I personally don't think you have enough of them for a list that extensive.
"^{[citation needed]}" shouldn't there, and if you can't find a source, remove the section in question.
"Non-Self-Governing Territories listed by General Assembly of the United Nations in 2002." Is this a reference, or an external link? I don't see it used as a reference, but if it is what I think it is (the official list that the article is based upon), then it should be an external link, and referenced when appropriate (for the "The list" section, I would think).
Could you use ref names and citation templates? They make everything neat and orderly. :D
Can you provide a link for ref #5?

Minor questions:

Why is "Unrecognized countries" in the "See also" section?
Wouldn't "Independence" be a "Change of status"?

That's all. The article looks good, and the work Thecurran (talk · contribs) has done is wonderful. Nice! Leonard^(Bloom) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In such lists, recently, the tables have become very popular. Maybe you should consider organizing it like it is done in List of unrecognized countries, for example. --Tone 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravichandar

I suggest

Please add more citations if possible. There around 6 citations I observe; and most of them have been used just once. Considering the size of the article and the number of claims being made, there should be more. The section on Criticism in particular needs more. They shall be absolutely necessary if POV issues arise, which happens frequently in the case of sections on criticism, etc.

As Leonard Bloom has said, instead of having a bulletted list like that, a table would do. And it would be even better if you could images. In this case, you could add a map or a flag for the particular territory. In such cases, anyhow, tables are the best. Try to make the list more attractive. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willow

Hi, I hope my friend Scartol hasn't given you too high expectations of me; I'm completely new at this sort of thing, but I'll do my best. I'll add my comments here piecemeal, as I read and re-read the article and let it sink in; please be patient! :)

First a few technical points:

I think you should date the lead image in its caption; it's from 2007, right? The image says "current" but it won't stay that way indefinitely. ;)

I don't understand the splitting of the list in the section "Former entries: Change of status"? Is it just unfinished?

I agree with the reviewers above that the article would benefit from many more references.

The absence of Tibet from the list seems rather glaring to me, and I suspect to other readers. Tibet has a government in exile, and IIRC was judged to fulfil the requirements for nationhood prior to the Chinese invasion. I'd recommend spending a full paragraph on that issue and any related ones.

To me, the article seems like a good skeleton that would benefit from being fleshed out more? Many readers will come to this page not knowing the history of colonialism and decolonization, I'm afraid. I'd recommend beginning with the historical section of at least a few paragraphs entitled "Background on colonialism" or something like that, and then go into the history of the list itself, again for maybe 3-5 paragraphs. It'd be nice if you could make those sections a self-contained narrative, you know, give them a flowing story-line, both for the writing itself and also so that readers have the chance to become engrossed, and not be interrupted by having to go to new pages sometimes written with a different style and emphasis. That double history might prepare the reader better to understand the sections to follow, on the current and former list members, don't you think?

The Criticism section might be easier to follow if it were organized into subsections, and also given a more flowing storyline. Sometimes you also seem to focus on the numbers, rather than on the narrative, which makes the point difficult to follow for uninformed readers like myself, e.g., " Of the 111 members who joined the UN between 1960 and 2008, 41 were never included on the list. Of those 41 in 1960, eight (mostly Arab) were ruled by the "Western" countries but 12 were ruled by the Soviet Union (now Russia), six by Yugoslavia (now dissolved), two by Czechoslovakia (now dissolved), one by Ethiopia, one by Pakistan, and 11 by themselves..."

It'd be also nice to have more details about the colonization and decolonization of the individual countries in the list, without having to follow the link. A thumbnail sketch, perhaps, with dates?

Hoping that this helps, Willow (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse the split in United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Change_of_status between tabled and non-tabled entries. I thought there wasn't enough info in the non-tabled entries, so I'm trying to promote at least a new five to the table every week (:only 16 to go:). When I table it, sometimes the flag isn't available on Template:flag, the country doesn't have an entry in the CIA world factbook, the correct term for its change in status is not clear, or the best link for foreign relations is hard to find.

Please also excuse me making the point difficult to follow by focussing on numbers rather than on narrative. With my scientific and political background, when I see criticism of such official reports without supporting statistics, it sets off my political bias alarms. I feel that the number-less versions are only held up by citing news reports from companies that have their own views. I assumed uninformed readers would also feel that way. I can see that was a poor assumption. Yes, I agree that Tibet presents a large omission but simply saying so makes me feel anti-Chinese. Similar arguments on native inhabitants being left out of colonization decisions could also be applied to the US so not raising these criticisms makes me feel pro-US. When numbers come in though, it is clear to see that last century, the US ceded territories to independence and held several referenda that allowed territories to gain statehood or to remain in the grey area. As such, one can note that the US has dealt proactively with amending its colonial past and lost territory whereas China has been less proactive and actually gained territory. Similarly, numbers bear out that all French territories had actually been removed from the list but many British territories are still on it. Starting with these few points, one can begin to realize that this list's committee has glossed over Chinese, French, and Russian colonialism but has focussed on that of the UK and US. In hindsight, we can see how many countries strove for independence from the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia but were never put on the list. Not quantifying it though makes me feel anti-Slavic. I want to find a way to point out both the successes and failures of this list and its committee without feeling like I'm breaking WP:NPV and also in a way that makes it smooth for you and easy to follow. Perhaps I should put in another table, start a new side article, or contribute more to "Decolonization". :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]