Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index/archive1


 * 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:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008.

List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index
Very well constructed list, clear and concise with a good use of colours and maps. I think it definitely good enough for an FL. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 01:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 *  Strong oppose .
 * Change compared with, not to, for contrasts.
 * The structure of this list was copied from the article "List of countries by Human Development Index" (a featured list), and in the list of countries: "to" is currently used. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsure what the "comparable country" adds to the reader's understanding. Likely nothing but confusion. "Hmmm ... I know Hungary's HID well."
 * The reader does not need to have accurate knowledge of the indices, the column "Comparable country" serves to establish a relationship between the Brazilian states and the countries of the world, leading the reader to compare the quality of life in Brazil and in the rest of the world. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "officially not a state"—better "not an official state". ✅ Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Also" is idle.
 * A region is not a country, but the equation is there in the lead.
 * Accessibility guidelines breached in the use of colours in the text; and it's unclear what they refer to (the adjacent map? Nope). ✅ Felipe C.S ( talk ) 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So Apama's HDI went down from 2003 to 2004 ... is that what I gather? Could be more explicit. ✅ Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the italics for some regions/states?
 * Only the regions are in italics, and because are not states, it is important to differentiate. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Numerical ranges: unspaced en dashes, please. Tony   (talk)  08:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - I do not answer the other questions because I do not understand. Please express it better. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from

Gary King ( talk ) 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Not only do I review it, I have to argue with you.
 * Just because some other list uses the wrong preposition is no justification for using it here too. Compare to for similarities, compare with for differences. ✅ Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * GET RID OF "ALSO". ✅ Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've equated region and country in one unweildy sentence in the lead.
 * "Comparable country" is absolutely ridiculous concept. I suggest you remove that column. Better to provide more information about the Br. states than hope (vainly, I believe) that a reader will go off and read about Hungary, just because it comes close on some index to a Brazilian state. That is discretionary browsing at its worst. ✅ Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you now tell us what the italics mean?
 * To highlight the regions between the states. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You might get a native English-speaker to help. Tony  (talk)  01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will continue to strongly oppose until the random browse column is remove and replaced with either nothing or something more connected with the topic. Tony   (talk)  07:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Random browse column? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it's gone, and not before time. Wherever I look there are little glitches:


 * "Increase", "steady", "decrease" in the key—they need to use the same grammar (increaseD ...); this is not an English-language issue, but one you have to get right in any language when listing.
 * Well, these are protected templates, I can't do anything. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove "actually". The ranking ties—are these an artifact of your construction? If so, I'd be inclined to GIVE them equal rankings where a few decimal places is required to differentiate them. The margins of error and the methodologies would involve much greater differences, so we're talking of meaningless (even misleading) distinctions here.
 * The rankings can be seen in the source. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Change from one year to the next is the theme of the table, yet there's nothing about how these measures have been changing over the past ... decade or so, in the lead. This would be a helpful part of the big picture. Tony   (talk)  01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you see, my English isn't good. I'm unable to create an acceptable text for the lead. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.