Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Libya/archive1

Libya
Self-nomination I believe this article should be become featured for several reasons. Firstly it has already been promoted to Good Article status. It is very well referenced and I have used many sources both written and from the internet to improve it. It contains all neccesary sections for a country article and very good pictures worthy of a featured article. The writing style is encyclopedaic and of a good quality. For those reasons I nominate 'Libya' to become Wikipedia's next featured country. Jaw101ie 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - meets Featured criteria. User:Jaw101ie 11:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Please provide independent, reliable sources, and please update your sources to include a full bibliographic style, so that your sources can be better identified.  Sandy 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * More, on prose. Please go through and check for redundancies and smooth prose, before Tony gets to the article.  After the 1969 coup, Qadhafi closed American and British bases on Libyan territory and partially nationalized all foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya. He also played a key role in promoting the use of oil embargoes as a political weapon for challenging the West, ... See Tony's guide. Sandy 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object switching to object, since the article also has possible POV issues. This doesn't sound like "Libya turning a new leaf in its relations with the west".  Prose needs to be cleaned up, refs beefed up (I also see an entire paragraph in Economy with no refs), and a more balanced view presented.  Sandy 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on explanations provided, I am striking my POV objection (above), but I cannot support the article as an FA until it is thoroughly referenced. I don't think we should compare its level of citations to another African nation's FA (see Mingus ah um comments below):  many past FAs are not adequately cited.  Current FA articles should be thoroughly refernced.  We can't ask Wiki readers to just "take our word for it".  Sandy 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Back for another look: The references now have a formal format, so the reader gets a better sense of the quality of the references.  I did see some minor cleanup needed in the references, for example missing parentheses, Special Report 2006, (May 2, 2006, 10 Most Censored Countries, Committee to Protect Journalists, Accessed July 19 2006
 * While the article is much improved, and better referenced, there are still sections that are unreferenced. It's not the number of references that matter:  it's whether the reader can find a source for all statements.  Just as an example:  Upon Libya's independence in 1951, most of the Jewish community emigrated from Libya. Another series of pogroms began after the Suez Crisis in 1956, forcing all but about 100 Jews to flee. When Muammar al-Qaddafi came to power, all remaining Jewish property was confiscated and all debts to Jews were cancelled. Although the main synagogue in Tripoli was renovated in 1999, it has yet to re-open for services.
 * Prose: Qadhafi himself is a devout Muslim, and his government is taking somewhat of a leading role in supporting Islamic institutions and in worldwide proselytizing on behalf of Islam.[58]Libyan Islam, however, has always been considered as traditional but in no way harsh. A Libyan form of Sufism is also somewhat common in parts of the country.[59] How is Qadhafi taking "somewhat" of a leading role? What is "somewhat" common?  The statement has a reference, which gives me no idea how common it is or in which parts of the country it is practiced. Libyan culture is, to a certain extent, similar to that of its other neighbouring Arab states. To a certain extent?  Why? These are examples of tightening up of prose that is needed.  Please put spaces between references at the end of sentences and the beginning of the next sentence.  (For example, look at ref 58.)  Another sentence:  Tourism is also on the rise which has brought demand for the building of more hotels and increasing capacity in airports such as Tripoli International.[44]  Please try to network and find someone who can help with a thorough review and copyedit.
 * The article has improved, but there is still much to be done to be FA. Sandy 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: While I have not yet decided whether I support or object this nomination, I would like to point out that the Chavez-Gaddafi link is an extremely minor point when one considers that, outside of Pakistan, Libya is the only "rogue" nation to truly make peace with the US under the Bush administration. He has casually cooperated with everything the US insisted upon.  Have there been ups and downs?  Of course, but... please remember, this is still shocking--absolutely shocking--to Libya watchers around the globe.  When one looks back on the last thirty years, it is impossible not to consider this "a new leaf."  --(Mingus ah um 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Note that, regardless of whether the ‘new leaf’ phrase is POV, it’s evidently unhelpful for the reader. A different phrase, more indicative of the direction and extent of whichever change is meant, might be more helpful in place of it. —xyzzyn 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording of the sentence. I think it should now meet everyone's standards. --(Mingus ah um 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
 * As far as I’m concerned, the new sentence reflects the media consensus and is therefore Good™. —xyzzyn 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support. A well-written, comprehensive article, worthy of FA status. However, I do share Sandy's concerns about the bibliography. If the Wikipedia references are replaced and the bibliographic style is fixed, consider this a strong vote to support. - htonl 16:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object there are a lot of concerns on the talkpage regarding lack of info on Qadafhi and Idi Amin, Jews in Libya, etc. Tchadienne 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm too annoyed with this user to be impartial. Tchadienne 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The second issue (the history of the Jews in Libya) has been addressed, and I, for one, do not believe that the asylum granted to Iddi Amin is worth mentioning on the national page...  Many former African dictators have spent their years in exile in other African nations.  While this is notable in, say, Gaddafi's page (as he was the individual who granted Amin asylum), I do not believe that it says much about the nation itself.  --(Mingus ah um 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Thanks for fixing the strikes: I wasn't sure what to do, as my objection has not been addressed.  What about the other strikes on the page (below this comment)?  Sandy 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not use the strikes against me. I repeat again, I thought that this was similar to a "to do list". That was the reason I foolishly struck others comments. My apologies. Please remember you are evaluating Libya not me. As for Rlevse comments below, it was he who struck them not I.--Jaw101ie 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for letting me know. Sandy 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Mild Object Same ref concerns, but in the meantime I changed the see also's in the middle of the article to further reading tags. ALSO: object to inconsistent date format, the article switches between DD MMM YYYY and MMM DD YYYY. They should all be the same, preferably MMM DD YYY. Rlevse 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Well-written & comprehensive. Kahuzi 21:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Object There are too few citations for an article of this length (Culture, Demographics, Geography). Some sections need copyedits (for grammar and tone). Much of what I pointed out (grammar and citations) has been changed and improved, although some picture captions are not in complete sentences (Captions). Hintha 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent article Joziboy 00:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Object Quite close, but it needs more citations. Some sections are well sourced, but "Municipalities", "Foreign relations", "Culture" and "Religion" all have significant sections unsourced.  I'm also a little worried that we are relying on Herodotus for the Phoenicians being the first to establish trading posts.  Additionally, the "Municipalities" section appears to describe an old system, it only briefly stating that the country has recently been redivided.  This needs to be updated, or if the old system is still also in place, the situation needs to be clarified. Warofdreams talk 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I'm now happy to support; all of my suggestions have been taken up, and various other improvements have been made to the article.  Warofdreams talk 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The Municipalities section has been updated. -- (Mingus ah um 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Support While there is always work to done, I do believe that this article meets FA standards. There could be more citations, but, at the same time, it should be stated that the only African nation featured article (South Africa) has less citations then the page currently in question.  Furthermore, one of the more significant objections (the absence of any reference to the history of the Jews in Libya) has been addressed within the article.  Finally, as I have noted above in my response to Sandy, I do not believe that the POV issue raised here is actually a real issue. I encourage those of you who have objected to reconsider your vote.  --(Mingus ah um 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Object, overall the article is quite good, but there are balance issues
 * 1) The desert section is too long
 * 2) Religion is a demographic feature of a population and should appear in the demographics part of the article
 * 3) No mention of media in the culture section, don't people from Lybia have media?
 * 4) Foreign realtions is a bit bloated with historical infrmation, really it should stick to the last 10 years with a little bit of historical context
 * 5) Some of the language is clunky, it could use a good copyedit.
 * --Peta 05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The desert section is too long? Umm... How familiar are you with Libya (it's history, it's geography)? For many historians, the nation is defined by two things Tripoli and the desert.  Most of the history section effectively discusses the history of Tripoli; the desert deserves its due.  Furthermore, this is an article about a nation.  I don't see any problem with an extended section devoted to religion (albeit, I have no problem with creating a sub-section in demographics if that is what people desire) or a foriegn relations section which actually addresses the fact that a single individual has dominated the politics of the nation for over thirty years.  Your arbitrary selection of ten years is irrelevant in a world where a nation can be governed indefinitely. --(Mingus ah um 09:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
 * I maintain my objection until the issues of balance are addressed; Foriegn reation is longer than necessary, and the desert section has too many images and is poorly written, and religion is a demographic indicator- this data should be in the demographics section. There is also no information on education in the country, which sould also appear in the demographics section.--Peta 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object for now. References must be sorted out; things like Encarta should be replaced, if possible. Sites that copy/summarise information released by governments (I mean particularly the various references to works by U.S. government departments) should be replaced by direct references to that information, if possible. The municipalities section calls itself outdated and should be replaced by currect data, if appropriate. Microformatting (apostrophes, dashes etc.) must be adjusted (made consistent, at least; made correct—cf. WP:DASH—, preferably). —xyzzyn 07:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should Encarta be removed? There's a particular encyclopedia which is cited on wiki more than any other private source (that I know of); would you like to see those references replaced, or is it somehow different when the publication has been around long enough for its earlier copyrights to expire? And why are you averse to government documents?  Academics who deal with political history delve through those far more than any other type excepting, of course, primary sources.  Yes, the muncipalities section should be overhauled, and soon.  But I find your first two objections absurd. --(Mingus ah um 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
 * I am opposed to Encarta because I do not consider it reliable enough to justify referencing it in place of proper sources. Their article on Libya has not been written by Dr Anderson—she only reviewed it. There is not even an indication of whether she reviewed the current version of the article or an older one (they do seem to update it occasionally). There is no indication of the actual author. As for government sources, I have no objection in principle, but I would rather see the sources themselves referenced explicitely than copies made by someone else. For example, instead of this, cite that. Thank you for finding at least one of my objections the way I intended it. —xyzzyn 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Xyzzy... The traditional bound encyclopedias never gave any "indication of the actual author," yet the legitimacy of these sources is never called into question on wiki. Encarta has chosen to identify its version of a "peer reviewer" (in this case, Dr. Anderson), and, by doing so, they have taken a far more open stance than the traditional encyclopedias toward identifying the qualifier/s of their information.  I don't see how that is problematic.  As for the other suggestion, sources can always be updated, but, when it comes to citing the facts, a secondary government source is no worse than a primary government source.  This is a featured article candidate, not a thesis. --(Mingus ah um 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Those are not secondary government sources. They are copies of government sources, with uncertain reliability. Why link to them? As for Encarta, it’s not a traditional encyclopedia and it’s a Microsoft product, so I’m skeptical; however, if the big problems (copyedit, images etc.) are solved, I’m not going to insist on this point being addressed. (I. e. I’m not going to insist on it, at all, but would still welcome some other source.) —xyzzyn 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Image:Libyseal.gif should be SVG or PNG, Image:Libya ethnic groups.jpg should be recreated as SVG, other maps could be converted to SVG, if possible. WP 10:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've given one format to all references relating to the library of congress and connected them all to the official site. Basically I changed the re-direct from "this" to "that", the latter being the more reliable. Thanks for pointing it out. --194.125.72.206 00:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice. There are some others left, though. The oil reserve data reference doesn’t look so great. I suggest using this table from OPEC’s Annual Statistical Bulletin. (Not a government, but reasonably reliable, or at least notable, in matters like this one.) The Factbook references could be collapsed to a single one, because the Factbook page is reasonably short and the URLs are the same in both cases. This should probably be that (and cited more appropriately). Also, which material, exactly, from the Background Notes is used in the article at the moment? (There’s a template at the end that says there is some.) —xyzzyn 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, there are two more references to countrystudies.us instead of the LOC. The BBC’s country profile and the PBS page can perhaps be replaced by something else (but I don’t insist on that). The reference to Hagos, whoever that is, looks awfully opinionated; is there really no other source? The ‘Education Libya’ reference looks bad, but I don’t see a good replacement at the moment; maybe this? Also, the reference for Tripoli International Airport is not a New York Times article, but an advertisement published in that newspaper. It should be replaced by a proper reference. By the way, is there a context to the 97% Islam figure in the religion section? (Where are the atheists etc.?) —xyzzyn 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tried to convert Image:Libyseal.gif to Image:Libyseal.png, q. v. Comments and help welcome. —xyzzyn 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Traced Image:Libya ethnic groups.jpg to SVG, at Image:Libya ethnic.svg. —xyzzyn 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They both look great! Just, please try to make the black background in the seal transparent. I am in the process, right now, of drawing up the current municipalities map. It should be uploaded in about an hour. -- User:Jaw101ie 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Black background? Sorry, I don’t see any. GIMP and Firefox render the background transparently. Are you using Internet Exploder? Its PNG functionality is (was?) known to have severe bugs. —xyzzyn 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I use explorer. I've just uploaded it and it's fine. The black has changed to white but that's o.k. because the white blends in very well with the grey of the infobox. Consider it fixed. Thanks a lot for all the help -- Jaw101ie 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your map looks good, but there might be a bit more text in the section. I made some suggestions elsewhere. (A the moment, I get the ‘Yeah, municipalities. So what?’ feeling, when reading the section. I don’t know if there is more to say on the topic in the main article, but something to put them into context would be nice.) —xyzzyn 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its funny you should mention municipalities. The word sha'biya (شعبية) doesn't actually mean municipalities. It means "something belonging to people". There's a bit on the municipalities mentioned in the Politics. The real role of the municipalities is more political than geographical. In each of the 32 municipalities (sha'biya) There are many smaller people's congresses (mu'tamarat sha'biya). There are about 50 in each municipality. Members of society meet in the people's congresses. The concerns of the 1500 urban wards are then taken up in the 32 main municipality congresses. The leaders of the 32 municipality congresses then meet annualy in the Central Peoples congress held in Surt annualy. This gives Surt a certain distinction not given to other municipalities.


 * So you see the municipalities are more political than geographical. If anybody wants to sum this up in a encyclopaedic fashion and put it in the municipalities section, feel free to do so. Nearly all this information is in the Politics section. --Jaw101ie 11:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: It seems that the candidature is going down the drain really . It's a shame, because this article is FA standard. What's even more of a shame is that some of the objections brought up are somewhat strange. I completely agree with (a. increasing references, b. fixing municipalities, c. possible copy edit wouldn't hurt). I am in the rather speedy process of doing these. The others I see as more conforming with that ticklish topic I like to call taste. I urge you all to:


 * a) Be objective


 * b) See: What is a featured article?


 * c) If your objection does fall under taste, please reconsider whether it should be here.


 * d) Ask yourselves does Libya meet the criteria of a FA (see (b) above). If not, where exactly is it lacking and as WP states "provide a specific rationale that can be addressed".

ANOTHER NOTE: We are all within our rights to ignore objections that do not conform in any way with "Wikipedia:What is a featured article?" when it comes to reaching a concensus.


 * Thank you all


 * --Jaw101ie 11:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: The Municipalites section has been fixed. I have redrawn the new thirty two municipalities from the Arabic Wikipedia and numbered them alphabetically in English. I urge all of you to remove your Municipality objection as this has now been corrected. Also note that the references have largely increased both in number and quality of bibliography. The next concrete objection to fix is a thorough copyedit.
 * Support Tchadienne 13:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)