Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Falkland Islands/archive1


 * 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 by Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2014 (diff).

Falkland Islands

 * Nominator(s): MarshalN20  T al k 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC) & Wee Curry Monster

This article is about the Falkland Islands, an archipelago in the South Atlantic, proximate to the eastern coast of South America. The article is written in British English. The article is highly controversial, but editors from all sides of the spectrum have worked together in order to create what is one of the best country articles in Wikipedia (We hope the reviewers agree). The article has had a recent peer review and, since its conclusion, no major changes have taken place for quite some time (the only recent issue were dead links to UK government information, but those were promptly fixed). If the reviewers find any problems with the article, whether major or minor, we hope that they give us a chance to fix those mistakes prior to them casting a decision on whether to pass or decline this FAC. Thank you for your time. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reading through all of your improvement suggestions, I notice the trend is in favor of adding more about the significant economic development (and demographic changes) of the Falklands during the 20th century. I will do my best to attain the goals, but I will probably need a few days to read and include thoughtful information in the history section. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ranger Steve
Sorry, I've been a bit caught up in off-wiki life and only just had time to have another look over the article. Guys, thank you; I think you've done a brilliant job on this article and made it into a very interesting piece. Reading it now it comes across as far more informative about all aspects of the islands' story. The history section in particular is superb; I'm afraid I really did think it looked like a list of territorial changes originally, but now it's an excellent piece of writing with a clear view of the islands' past. I think this FAC has been well worth it (I hope you think so too). Very happy to Support. Ranger Steve  Talk  12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Steve, we appreciate that you took the time to analyze and provide thoughtful suggestions on improving the article. I agree that it certainly is now a great work. This could not have been done without your help. Thank you.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D
Support My comments are now all addressed. Nice work to MarshalN20 and all the other editors involved in developing this article to its current standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Source Review by Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the infobox details (like Hugo) don't appear to be sourced anywhere
 * Addressed. I also removed citations of some infobox details, specifically those not also sourced in other FAs like Peru and Germany.-- MarshalN20 T al k 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * MercoPress: you're sometimes italicizing, sometimes linking, sometimes neither. Be consistent - no italics, pick a linking style.
 * Addressed. All italicized.-- MarshalN20 T al k 22:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * FN4: should identify work
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Use the loc parameter for short cites to chapters/sections instead of pages
 * Addressed-- MarshalN20 T al k 19:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * FN25, 45, 115: page formatting
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is one Factbook ref a full citation in footnotes while others are short cites?
 * Not sure what you mean, but I think to have addressed it.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * FN62: formatting
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * FN64: missing italics
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 17:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Naval-history.net?
 * The first source is no longer used in the article. The second source, published by Naval-history.net, is widely regarded as a reliable source.-- MarshalN20 T al k 18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: The Smith source (from Naval-history.net) was only being used once for a minor detail. For the sake of avoiding disagreement, I removed it from the article.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * FN79: formatting
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in when you include accessdate
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Use a consistent date format
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lesser-known locations or places that have the same name (eg. Cambridge) should include state or country
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you include publisher for journals
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Johnson: given link includes full citation details at the top
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Hamiltonstone
That's about it. I'm a support once these are sorted. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Andrew Gray

 * A little late, but I can't see anything else I know to be inaccurate (though there's bound to be something!). Happy to support on content, though I'd still advise dropping the "ranking" numbers for economic statistics as noted below. "Culture" feels a little weak but not sure what else should be added as distinctively Falkland. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew! I plan on improving other country articles in the future. If during that time I find anything new (for content ideas), I will certainly add it to this article; this goes for both culture and economics. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 18:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

cm
Neat article but it has a couple of issues:
 * "is ranked the 222nd largest in the world by GDP" => this is so confusing! The islands are NOT a country, so putting them in a rank among countries is at least baffling. A more appropriate method would be to give the actual figure, then say that this figure is similar to that of country X which ranks on position y among independent countries.
 * What is being ranked is the economy (economic system) of the state. The islands are not a sovereign state; its sovereignty is disputed between Argentina and the UK, but that doesn't mean the Falklands are not a state. "Country" is an ambiguous term that can refer to both sovereign (independent) and non-sovereign states, so the confusion is understandable. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree that these rankings are confusing and don't really tell us anything meaningful (both within the infobox and the running text; in the infobox they're worse, as they link to lists on which the Falklands aren't rated). I would strongly suggest dropping them in favour of a direct comparison (eg "the GDP is comparable to that of Norway"). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't a direct comparison all the more complicated? I'd like to think that our readers know about the GDP of Norway, or at least know that Norway is a country in Europe, but that's (quite sadly) not the case. Most individuals are going to find it easier to understand "222nd" as an "oh, that's very down the ladder". I also don't think that the lack of information from one article (specially a non-featured list) should impact a decision in this other article. If anything, the information of the incomplete article should be improved. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 23:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "222nd" really tells us anythingwithout having to go into a lot more detail explaining (222nd of how many, for example - 225 or 250 or 300?). "The GDP of the Falklands is xxx; on a per-capita basis, this is yyyy, comparable to that of Norway, among the world's richest countries" would give us the numbers and some context in a simpler fashion. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase my comment: this is not a country in the sense of an average reader thinking a country is an independent entity. If we take countries like Netherlands is made of 4 countries, UK made of who-knows-how-many, then I bet this is not the 222nd. "out of 229", 229 what? I am sure if you compare the GPDs to a well known country, readers at least have a chance of understanding that. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nergaal, just because some readers have an erroneous understanding of the word "country" does not mean Wikipedia has to cater to their ignorance (added that the FI government self-identifies as a country, so it's not just independent analysts). The Netherlands is a constituent country of a larger sovereign state, but is also typically listed as a country (and compared as such among other countries). Lastly, you're taking the "out of 229" away from its context, which indicates the comparison is economic; and, again, it does not make sense to me that one the one hand you consider the reader's ignorance about governments, but on the other expect them to be knowledgeable about country GDPs. I prefer to assume most readers probably don't even know "GDP" is an acronym, and so I consider that the current text is simple and accurate. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By that thinking then we should include all territories that think of themselves as independent but are not recognized internationally. In that case I bet there would be much more than 229. There are 210ish independent countries. Anything above that limit HAS TO INCLUDE inclusion criteria for the remaining entries. I bet there are orders of magnitude of readers that know what GDP is than what do the 229 refers to. Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I have never stated that the Falklands are independent. Do you understand the difference between a sovereign state and a non-sovereign state? Also, notice that nowhere in the article do I use the word "country" (check Falkland Islands). As I explained before, the term "country" is very ambiguous and can refer to both sovereign & non-sovereign states.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The source for this is given, its the CIA World Factbook, acknowledged as a reliable source for this information. It clearly refers to economic value, in an appropriate manner as the Falklands have their own distinct economy that is managed by the islanders themselves.  Nowhere is this referenced as implying nationhood or any other spin real or imagined it refers to a Gross Domestic Product (Product Purchasing Power).  Its also a standard way of completing this entry in the infobox eg Guam the very example you're touting below.  I also find the same information referred to other comparable articles eg Tokelau, Anguilla, Bermuda, Cook Islands, take your pick.  And you should know that if readers don't understand what it means, they can click though on the wikilinks and find out.  Its a standard way of providing this information on Wikipedia, so why is it being singled out here?  WCM email 00:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * a strange thing is that although this is part of the UK, there is no comparison to other parts of the UK or its dependencies; how does the economy compare to other parts of the crown holdings?
 * This is something that should be addressed in the article British Overseas Territories, and not in the article about the Falkland Islands.-- MarshalN20 T al k 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, according to the BOT article, the Falklands are not part of the UK (they are administered by it).-- MarshalN20 T al k 23:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For an average reader, there isn't really a difference between these islands and Gibraltar. Since the islanders are UK citizens, then it seems sensible to compare their standard of living to other such citizens. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My point still holds. If readers want to know about how the BOTs compare, they would and should look for it at the British Overseas Territories article. I'll further add that I looked for sources into this topic, for the sake of fulfilling the request, but none exist.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An article on Guam or Puerto Rico would still have to have some comparisons to the mainland US. Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't conduct WP:OR in the article; please provide me with a source that "compares" the Falklands with other BOTs, and then I'll add it to the economics section. Also, this article has plenty of written material on the interaction between the UK and the Falklands. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Got to agree with Marshal here, we shouldn't be making such a comparison as that would be WP:OR and WP:SYN. We would need a source to make such a comparison, which we would then report.  I am not aware of any such source and speaking frankly it would be unlikely.  Economically like all BOT the Falklands manage their own economy and it is on a completely different basis to the UK; an analogy would be to compare apples and oranges.  And you're wrong the islanders are not UK citizens, they are in fact British Overseas Territories citizens, who have a right to British citizenship.  The rights are not reciprocal as British Citizens do not have a right to Falkland Islands' Belonger status, it has to be earned like everyone else.  I've also just looked at the examples you give, take Guam for example, there isn't a comparison with the US, the article explains the relationship with the US; just as this article explains the relationship of the Falkland Islands with the UK.  WCM email 00:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * he least-populated territory in South America => really? I bet that there are some Andes or Amazonia parts that have less population. can you quantify this with respect to subdivisions of SAm countries? or at least say that it is less populated than any of the independent SAm countries
 * Sure! Addressed. I changed "territory" to "state".-- MarshalN20 T al k 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Still missing my point. You can't compare apples to oranges. These islands are not independent, so please try to refrain from making comparisons to independent countries without CLEARLY making the separation. Just say that they have a pop much smaller than any SAm country, and perhaps say that its pop is smaller than all the independent countries but Vatican. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Falkland Islands are a country and a non-sovereign state. That's what reliable sources present, and that's what the article presents. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From Country: The term "country" is used to refer to sovereign states. There is no universal agreement on the number of "countries" in the world, since a number of states have disputed sovereignty status. There are 206 total states, with 193 states participating in the United Nations, two observer states and 11 other states (if the Cook Islands and Niue are included, although they haven't declared their independence and are in free association with New Zealand). All are defined as states by declarative theory of statehood and constitutive theory of statehood. 
 * If you are willing to disregard all points raised perhaps you should not come to FAC looking for feedback. If you keep on using ambiguous terms for the sake of making who-knows-what-point then go ask feedback somewhere else. Plus, googling "countries in South America" does not give reliable sources for the list of 12 entries in the wiki articles, and as such they ought to be considered OR. Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also from Country: A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics.
 * Here are a couple of sources ( & ) referring to the Falklands as a "country"; no that it matters, because the article at no point refers to the Falklands as a country.
 * I have responded to each of your points; you consider I have "disregarded" them because you do not approve the responses. I have done the same in all of my reviews. The fact there are 5 supports for this nomination speaks for itself. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This particular comment isn't sourced, it originally came from List of South American countries by population and whilst an interesting and relevant factoid, we rather need a source to make such a statement. I am going to modify it to simply state they have a low population density suitably cited.  WCM email 00:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * is there an agreement of some sort with regards to the territorial waters delimitation. if not is there a de facto border?
 * Very good question. I'm sure Wee Curry Monster knows more about this than me, but I will give it a look.-- MarshalN20 T al k 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew up above provided a link with maps. I can't find anything on an agreement with Argentina. I think Andrew's link indicates that there is a de facto border. I will add that into the article.-- MarshalN20 T al k 23:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no agreement, Argentina refuses to recognise the Falklands EEZ and has attempted to sell fishing rights and oil rights inside it. Practically, the Falklands EEZ is respected by commercial entities in the South Atlantic as the Falklands EEZ is policed by a Fisheries Protection vessel permanently deployed there. WCM email 09:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, what is the amount of land claimed by UK? Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The water claim (in nautical miles and kilometers) is already in the article.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "this border overlaps with the maritime boundary of Argentina" How much? Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The source does not state how much.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer is it doesn't. Normally when two EEZ overlap the boundary would be set at the median point.  In the case of the Falklands EEZ, the UK has not challenged Argentina's 200 nm limit but set the eastern edge to follow the Argentine 200 nm limit, which explains the somewhat lopsided shape of the EEZ.  Argentina simply claims the Falklands territorial waters as their own; explained here and here.  WCM email 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose until my issues are addressed satisfactorily. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Second oppose to a second nomination of mine. Perhaps third time is the charm. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Images
Note -- I can see above that you've pinged RangerSteve re. your responses to his comments. Has anyone completed an image review? If not, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC


 * I've just run through these (there's only a dozen or so). All look good except:


 * commons:File:Necksaundersisland2.jpg - this is marked CC-BY but the Flickr source is CC-BY-NC. It's marked as confirmed CC-BY (from 2007) but might be worth switching out if we have a suitable alternative...
 * commons:File:Lt. Lowcay, View of the Harbor of Port Louis - Berkley Sound, East Falkland.jpg; commons:File:Edward Gennys Fanshawe, Mount William, Falkland Islands, May 1849 (Portion B).png - both of these are PD in any normal life+70 jurisdiction, but my understanding is that the US rules would require publication (cf/ Public domain). What would be needed to prove these are clear? Andrew Gray (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I like all of the images in the article, but please do remove any that do not meet the appropriate standards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your understanding of the rules is flawed, if you refer to both of the latter images its clear that they're PD. Even if published after 2003, they became public domain 70 years after the artists death.  Lt.Lowcay died 1853 so it became PD in 1923, Fanshawe died 1906 so it became PD in 1976.  Even if you published them for the first time tomorrow, you couldn't claim copyright on them.  WCM email 22:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Review by Hurricanehink
I stumbled here from an FAC of my own, and thought I'd comment! All in all, a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in the first paragraph, I feel you should mention the archipelago is east of South America. That's probably the best way to help identify roughly where it is, as opposed to the mentions of Patagonia.
 * "The territorial waters of the Falklands extend to 200 nautical miles" - this could use conversion to miles and km
 * Similarly, all of the references to Celsius needs to have conversions to Fahrenheit
 * How come the islands aren't part of the European Union? I expected to see some mention, seeing as they're part of the UK, which itself is part of the EU, right?


 * Thank you for the review and kind comments. I have addressed all your points in the article.-- MarshalN20 T al k 11:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment
Now that the review has been stable for a couple of days, I've walked through the discussions above and I believe we have consensus to promote, not so much because the supportive comments outnumber the voice of opposition, but rather because I think the objections have been satisfactorily answered and/or actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.