Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by GDP (nominal)/archive2


 * 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC).

List of countries by GDP (nominal)

 * Nominator(s): Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article's prose has been improved, references have been updated, and all data has been updated and checked. The list failed nomination two years ago due to these factors. Zach Vega ( talk to me ) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The first sentence seems tautological, it needs to be clarified.
 * I strongly believe this could be done as a single table, with columns for country and each of the sources. The format seems odd with four parallel tables and the country names duplicated, and that makes it more difficult to compare the sources.
 * I think it would make sense to merge this page with List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita as the data is fundamentally the same. Add a column for population in the table, and you could have Country-Population-IMF-IMFpercap-WB-WBpercap-UN-UNpercap in a single concise table. It's sortable, so no worries about the different rankings. Reywas92Talk 21:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The first sentence has been fixed.
 * Four parallel tables are included because the sources differ in their time frame and coverage. The IMF and World Factbook data are from 2015, while the UNSD and World Bank data are from 2014. Additionally, many of the regions measured in one table are not measured in the other. Another issue with combining the tables is determining the rank. Which dataset is the countries ranked by? The IMF one? The UN one? One could average them like suggested in the first nomination, but this would be a violation of WP:SYNTH.
 * The per capita data is not fundamentally the same. The list up for nomination measures the aggregate size of economies, often used to determine international economic influence and power, whilst the per capita rankings typically determine development and standards of living. These two concepts, while based on the same notion, are greatly different in what they cover. Additionally, this would constitute doubling the size of a table that is already pushing the limits of acceptable scope. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 04:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be ranked, they can be in alphabetical order and the table is sortable, or just pick one to be default and have a note. That is a good point about per capita, we can see what others think. The reason the page is so big is because every country and flag is there four times when it could just be once, and every cell has a center alignment tag that could be applied collectively; size is not a concern. Reywas92Talk 18:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with the above, the lists are hard to view on even medium resolution screens. The fix would be to have every country listed only once (instead of 4 times!), but with a column for each measurement. Having four entire tables side by side is quite hard to capture on normal sized screens. Mattximus (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Dudley
 * I am not sure where this nomination is going. The article looks fine on my screen, but I take the point that it does not on others, and it would be better to have each country listed once in alphabetical order. Some of the CIA figures are based on data going back to 2003. These are not comparative with 2015 ones and I would exclude the older ones. The CIA also adds a note that the figure for China is misleading because the exchange rate is set by fiat, which is worth mentioning in the article. It gives a figure for China of $10.98 trillion, whereas the table shows $11.38 trillion as the CIA's figure for China. Another concern is that has not edited the article (or this page) since 5 June, and many edits have been made since then, often by anonymous IPs. Has anyone been monitoring them? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this nomination has been open for over 2 months without a lot of support, and the nominator seems to have left it, so I'm going to close it as no promoted. -- Pres N  01:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.