Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Falkland Islands/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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

edit
Nominator(s): MarshalN20 Talk 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC) & Wee Curry Monster[reply]

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 Talk 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Talk 12:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ranger Steve

edit

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)[reply]

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 Talk 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ranger Steve (talk)
I’ve just been reading up on the Battle of the Falklands and came across this FAC. I’m going to be offline for a few days, but will give a review when I get back. In the meantime though, I have some observations that could help improve the article:
  • History: This reads more like a summary of the territorial disputes that have dogged the Falklands for centuries. Obviously that’s important, but I think the section is too heavily weighted to that element now. For instance, there’s room to expand the pre-European history (currently one sentence). There’s no mention of the Ross Expedition, or the reason for the Falkland’s importance as a port, its coaling station or the famous ships recovered from the harbour.
  • “resulted in a British victory over imperial Germany” and “resulted in the Royal Navy's victory over the Kriegsmarine.” Needs rewording; these battles did not result in victory over the entirety of Imperial Germany or the Kreigsmarine.
  • Come to think of it, why is the River Plate mentioned as being ‘near’ the archipelago? The battle took place over 1,000 miles away from the islands. This needs clarifying and the exact contribution of the islands to the battle explained (ie. the repairs to Exeter).
  • Geography: Quite short, is there room for expansion. Also, why are the lat and long approximate?
  • Climate: Even shorter. Three sentences doesn’t seem much for an FA – could it not have its own section, some more averages and extremes, and maybe even a climate graph that I see on other articles?
  • Tourism: Currently only dealt with in one word (repeated), but not clarified in any way; could this not be expanded (ie. to clarify the island’s role in cruise liner tours)?

Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, thank you very much for the comments.
My only major disagreement is with the history suggestion. The reason the territorial dispute is so prominent in the history of the islands is because that is, truly, the most remarkable aspect of its history. This and other sections are deliberately short per WP:SUMMARY. The islands have no significant "pre-European history". The Ross Sea party featured article only mentions the Falklands once. Ships recovered from the harbor falls more on the realm of nautical archaeology, but not a summary history of the state. Nonetheless, the fifth paragraph could certainly be improved in order to show the islands' significance as a port.
I can certainly address most of the other suggestions, but I'd like to point out once more that sections and information are summarized per WP:SUMMARY. In other words, I will not include climate charts or expand sections just to make the article bigger. I believe in the policy's intent that short, summarized reference articles are more likely to be read than long ones; readers looking for specific or specialized content can then follow the wikilinks into articles that are focused on their topic of interest (such as Climate of the Falkland Islands).
There appears to be two trends in the country article FACs, one that follows a long model (such as Germany) and another that follows WP:SUMMARY (such as Peru). Arguably, both states have long histories that can fill up a myriad pages of information, but I find the article on Peru to be far more readable than Germany.
I hope my positions makes sense. I mean absolutely no disrespect and look forward to your review and further suggestions.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently reading up on Falklands tourism, so I may take some time to respond (perhaps a day). Nonetheless, I may add information about recovered ships in the tourism part. "Wreck diving" also seems to have a role in this story. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to add to the article in order to make it longer. However, I am looking for balance, and I think it's a bit lacking in this article. I appreciate you've gone for a shorter 'summary' style article, but the problem I see is that the sovereignty dispute content looks more like it's come from a long model. I realise that in most sources, the sovereignty is the main focus of attention, but I don't think that should mean this article places excessive weight on it, whilst leaving other sections under-represented. I'm afraid I can't support the article with its current weighting.

History section:

  • I think more than half a sentence could be allocated to Pre European history; it gets its own section in the history article after all.
  • No, there's no recorded history. I'm not asking for much, just a better presentation of the several tens of thousands of years before Europeans arrived. If there is no evidence of significant history or archaeology, that can be better stated than a vague possibility of previous settlement which appears to be used purely to introduce the second half of that sentence (ie that the islands were uninhabited in the 16th century). Ranger Steve Talk 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's impossible to do a presentation of "tens of thousands of years" about a pile of rocks in the ocean. The only kind of notable archaeology in the Falklands is nautical; everything else is vague. It is what it is. The archipelago's history, as far as world history is concerned, begins in the 16th century.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 read almost like a list of claims, and the prose is a bit wanting. This could easily be fleshed out with some more details to make it more of a social history. For instance, why did France surrender its claim in 1776 (and the same with the Spanish and British departures)? There's little sense of explanation behind the actual events, which contributes to the sense that it is a just history of disputes.
  • What does "the island's status was again undisputed" actually mean? The context isn't that clear in the preceding paragraph.
  • WCM's addition definitely improves matters, but it needs a copyedit and referencing.
  • General prose: A lot of small sentences could be merged to improve the readability (ie. In 1990, the UK and Argentina "normalised" diplomatic relations. In 1998, Argentine president Carlos Menem, in a letter to Falklanders, "called for reconciliation 'to heal old wounds'").
  • Considering I am the primary author of the text, I cannot find those "small sentences" you point out. I will, however, address this one you point out. If there are any others, please do feel free to edit them as you see fit.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the First and Second World War paragraph, the history returns almost exclusively to sovereignty issues. What about the evolution of the settlements? When was Stanley proclaimed the capital for instance? When was the airfield built? Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1840 the Falklands became a Crown colony, and a governor and Scots subsequently established an official pastoral settlement." Could you clarify the Scots bit? At first I thought i was an individual's name, but I presume it's Scottish settlers. Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What else is relevant to add about it? The war only lasted about a couple of months. I find no reason to make two months worth of history into anything longer than sentence.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is in stark contrast to your comments about reflecting the literature on the topic. I can't believe that the most notable event in the island's history is not the most notable in sources on the Falklands. The casualty figures, the effect on the Argentine government and the fact the war left 20,000 landmines on the island strike me as the sort of details worthy of inclusion. Ranger Steve Talk 10:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those points you mention are the consequences of the war, but not the war itself. The landmines and reaction of the Argentine government (as it concerns the Falklands) can be included. Casualty figures are best suited for war articles. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty Dispute

  • Here things tend to re-tread the content of the history section, but with some new facts. Despite the two sentences I've given above about 're-healing', we now find out that in fact, in 1994, "Argentina promulgated a new constitution claiming the Falkland Islands". As well as clarifying what this actually means, I really would be inclined to make the history section more social, and put anything to do with claims and sovereignty in this section.
  • You don't seem to notice that the "re-healing" statement happened four years after the 1994 event. I am currently moving (and removing) things around both of these areas. The "history" section of the article is not going to focus on "social history". Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my point; there were two chronologies of the same subject in two sections, each containing different information. The original two sentences in the history section might have suggested a warming of relationships, but then the reader finds out later that there was a significant cooling in between those two dates. It's much better to have one chronology of these disputes. Regardless of where the dispute chronology goes, there will need to be some social history in the history section though. Ranger Steve Talk 10:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With reference to balance again, why does a journalist's comment matter in a summary style article? Surely the final sentence in this paragraph demonstrates the islander's opinions clearly enough by itself. This is one of the details that I think makes the sovereignty content too long relative to the rest of the article.

Geography

  • Balance again. Why two paragraphs for geography but only three sentences for climate? As I said, I don't want you to expand it just to make the article longer, but we get so much information on the geography and little on the weather. This sense of imbalance is further evidenced in the fact that we get two sentences on the resident's cake, tea and chatting habits in the culture section.
  • The balance argument does not really apply here, specially a comparison between culture and climate. Regardless, I added some information and made climate its own paragraph.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "East Falkland houses Stanley (the capital and largest city)". Is Stanley a city? This sentence also implies that there are other cities on the Falklands. Some consistency is also required; Stanley is referred to as Port Stanley in other sections. Ranger Steve Talk 16:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's cited as a city that's fine, but I think you've misunderstood my other points. Surely there aren't any other cities on the Falklands, but by saying that Stanley is the largest city, it implies there are other, smaller ones. I didn't say that Port Stanley was confusing or wrong, but I expect consistency in an FA (I would not expect to find Beijing and Peking used interchangeably in a China article for instance). Ranger Steve Talk 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much I can do about it; I can't find a source that examines cities in the Falkland Islands. Maybe the reason is that there are no true cities, but I can't guess. All I can affirm is that the cited source specifically states that Stanley is the "capital and largest city" in the Falklands. Also, the naming between "Port Stanley" and "Stanley" is not as disparate as "Beijing" and "Peking". I could understand your second point if I was using the name "Puerto Argentino" to refer to Stanley, but that's not the case.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but there really is plenty you can do about it. Let's be honest - there are no other cities on the Falklands (I'm not convinced by Stanley, but I'll let it slide as it's the capital). So don't include a sentence that implies otherwise. We aren't require to slavishly follow sources, especially when they're clearly incorrect on the matter. Regarding Port Stanley, once again this is an FAC; please pick one option and be consistent per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Geographical_items. Ranger Steve Talk 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't conduct original research. At no point does the article indicate that there are other cities in the Falklands. The sentence that states Stanley is "the capital and largest city" does not imply anything beyond what it states (it neither affirms nor denies the existence of other cities in the archipelago). Please read some of the literature ([1]). Some sources alternatively refer to it as the "primate city". I understand that this is an FA review, but neither of us can create information from our own personal conclusions. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does imply there are other cities, by virtue of the use of a superlative that compares one thing with another (in this case cities). To use a different example, we shouldn't say "the sun is the largest star in our solar system", because we cannot compare it with another star in the solar system - there isn't one. If you won't change it, then I feel obliged to ask for reliable sources (not the ones you've linked to) stating that there are other cities. At the moment, the grammar is wrong. Ranger Steve Talk 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question you ask of me would be the same as me asking you to provide a source that backs up your position. Neither case can be done because nobody has written anything about it. Maybe it's because there are no cities in the Falklands, or maybe it's because nobody cares. All I know is that the sources call Stanley "the largest city". Regardless, I changed the "largest city" to "only city". Is this good?--MarshalN20 Talk 01:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow as I work my way down. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Etymology


@Ranger Steve: WCM and I have addressed everything that we could from your recommendations. The only major point we have not managed to address is the suggestion to expand the pre-history of the archipelago, but this is only because archaeological research has yet to produce more conclusive information on the topic. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, we hope that future editors will be able to expand on this part of the article. We also hope that you find the article's current state as acceptable, and would appreciate to know your position (support or oppose) assuming there is nothing else left to address. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

edit

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)[reply]

Resolved comments from Nick-D (talk)
It's good to see that this article has been developed to a high standard, but I think it needs a fair bit of additional work to reach FA level. I have the following comments:
  • "Falklands enjoy internal self-governance" - 'enjoy' is a bit odd in this context
  • "an estimated 2,932 in 2012" - the lead should note that this excluded the large number of British military personnel in the islands. Given that its based on census data 'estimated' is also not really appropriate: this is a pretty firm figure, and the source does not call it an estimate
  • Does the UN actually call the islands "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"? The source stresses that this is a listing of names used to help with statistical processing and that they do not have any official status.
  • No it isn't, or I wouldn't have raised this. If the name is only used by UN statistical staff for processing purposes (as the source provided states) it's not of any real significance and should be omitted from the article. The question is if the UN uses it as its default designation for the islands. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The settlements' mutual awareness is a subject of debate." - what's meant by this? (were the settlers not aware of the other settlement? - if so, I'd suggest using clearer language)
  • "a pastoral settlement was established by Scotsmen and a governor" - was this an official colonial settlement? (also, 'Scotsmen' is sexist unless this was really a male-only settlement)
  • "During the first half of the 20th century, the Falklands played a prominent role during the two world wars as a military base aiding control of the South Atlantic" - no they didn't. In both world wars the islands were a base of middling importance during the first months of the war, and a total backwater thereafter. No forces of any importance were based in the islands, and Simonstown in South Africa was the main British base in the South Atlantic
  • " another naval encounter near the archipelago" - that battle was fought off Argentina and Brazil, and nowhere near the Falklands
  • " resulted in the Royal Navy's victory over the Kriegsmarine" - overstatement. A force of British ships batted a single German heavy cruiser which then scuttled herself.
  • If you want to talk about World War II, a more important development was the dispatch of a battalion of British troops to protect the islands from a potential Japanese invasion(!), and - more sensibly - discourage the Argentines from attempting an invasion while British forces were tied down against Germany and Japan
  • "However, negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina reached no meaningful conclusion" - something of an oversimplification given that the British government strongly indicated that it would be willing to eventually hand the islands over to Argentina at one point.
  • "After the war the United Kingdom expanded its military presence on the islands, building RAF Mount Pleasant and increasing the size of its garrison,[52] and the UK and Argentina "normalised" diplomatic relations in 1990." - the last part of this sentence is on a different topic from the remainder
  • What's the role of the appointed Chief Executive of the islands? (it seems unusual to have a non-democratically elected person with a prominent role in actually running a democratic state)
  • There is nothing unusual about the Chief Executive's role. Prof. Vincenzo Sainato writes: "The chief executive and six-member executie council are responsible for the daily management and delivery of government services on the Islands." In other words, the Chief Executive is the head of government. This is what is already stated, and there really is nothing else to add about it.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of another democratic state where the head of government is appointed rather than elected, so it seems appropriate to expand upon this a little. Is this done because the islands are too small to sustain or require a full-time elected head of government? (the mayors of similarly-sized and populated local government areas in Australia are usually work in the role on a part time basis, with the full-time CEO of the council being responsible for the day to day running of the local government's functions). Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is something different (from "what is the role?" to "why is this the case?"). The request is very interesting, but seems excessive for the article. Looking at the lengthy Germany featured article, which presents the head of government (Chancellor) as also appointed rather than elected, I do not find any explanation as to why this is the case (or why power is in the hands of the "third-highest official"). Coming from Peru, all of these different systems are interesting (the President in my country is the head of state & government, as well as the highest elected official). The literature on the topic, for the Falklands, also does not bother to explain why the Chief Executive has this role. These roles are all presented as facts; it's a standard.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that the chief executive is actually the head of government? The constitution (which is the referenced source) actually says that the chief executive is the head of the islands' public service, which is a different thing altogether (eg, he's the head of the civil service, but doesn't necessarily have authority over the elected MLAs as the term 'head of government' implies). The constituion also says that the CE doesn't have the right to vote in meetings of the executive council (only the elected MLAs have this right). This news story says that the current chief executive was selected through an interview process conducted by MLAs and was appointed by the governor on "advice" from the executive council, which is also a rather different concept from only the governor making the appointment as the article says (the convention in British-style governments is that the appointed governors always follows "advice" from the elected government, with their role being to rubber stamp this and provide a fall back to resolve constitutional and political crises). Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good question. I reached the conclusion based on Prof. Sainato's explanation, but a closer inspection does indicate matters to be a tad more complex. According to Prof. Robert Buckman, in his book Latin America 2012 (p. 394), the Falklands has two heads of government, the governor and the chief executive. I'm going to have the article reflect what Buckman directly points out. Thanks for the catch.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " has led authorities to contain, remove or exterminate invasive species" - should this be 'attempt to contain...' given that such efforts are very difficult?
  • The article doesn't note the significant drop in the islands population which took place during the 20th century (from about 3000 to 2000 people, from memory), and the associated economic decline. This is hinted at in the 'Demographics' section, but never explicitly stated.
  • Watch for over-linking (eg, Camp is linked several times)
  • There should be an internet link to the CIA World Factbook
  • Is the claim that "Agriculture (primarily sheep farming and fishing) accounts for 95 percent of the Falkland Islands' gross domestic product" accurate? The CIA World Fact Book contains this statistic, but also states that "The economy was formerly based on agriculture, mainly sheep farming but fishing and tourism currently comprise the bulk of economic activity". The Census results state that only 11% of islanders work in agriculture, and the Falklands Islands Government website says that tourism isn't much smaller than agriculture [2] (though the wording is unclear)
  • I can only work with the sources available. The CIA World Factbook estimate may be outdated since it was last calculated in 1996. The website you link to does, however, provide a statistic on the fishing industry. I'll work with both sources to improve the picture on the economy.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is simply no way that the 95% figure is accurate, especially given that the Falklands Government says that the size of the tourism industry (which falls under the services sector) is almost as large as the agriculture industry. The Falkland Islands Economic Development Strategy (available via [3]) has various figures which look useful - the table at the end states that agriculture and fisheries accounted for 62% of gross value added in 2009. It would be also worth digging around UK government websites to see if they have more recent/better figures. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed (I hope). I included information from a 2014 book which had a whole chapter devoted to the Falkland Islands economy. It just came out last month! Very lucky find.--MarshalN20 Talk 21:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that that book is a reliable source? It appears to have been published by a self-publishing outfit, and Global Investment and Business Center doesn't appear to have an online presence. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the publisher ([4]), and found no reason to doubt the quality of the source. The company specializes in publishing country business guides. The data being cited is also quite accurate, based on what we had been discussing here. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain how you reached that conclusion? The website doesn't seem to provide any details on the firm's authors/researchers or other credentials, which is highly unusual for this kind of business. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That company looks anything but reliable: it names no authors for its works, which is hugely unusual for this kind of business, and appears to operate on a printing on demand model. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Development projects in education and sports have been funded by the Falklands government, without aid from the United Kingdom" - this seems misleading. The UK government has invested heavily in the islands' economy since 1982 (with the military presence being a major source of economic support, even if formal development assistance is no longer being provided), and it's not clear to me how 'sports' will develop the islands' economy.
  • Sports help develop the human capital of the national economy. I don't find the text misleading. By explicitly indicating that education and sports are funded by the Falklands government, the sentence implicitly points out that other projects are not (and other parts of the article mention that the UK invested heavily in the islands).--MarshalN20 Talk 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excluding British Ministry of Defence personnel and families based at RAF Mount Pleasant" - this wording is a little bit unclear: the census states that it does not include "military personnel serving in the Falkland Islands or their dependents", and not just those at Mount Pleasant (this is the main British base, but there's also a network of radar stations and a military port). It would be good to note how many service personnel and dependants are in the islands given that they make up a large chunk of the total population (according to The Guardian, there were 1,300 uniformed personnel and 50 civilians in 2013: [6])
  • Is Wagstaff a reliable source? Tourist guides are generally not considered great resources.
  • I'd suggest adding the British official history of the Falklands War to the 'further reading' section: as far as I'm aware, this is the major recent study of the history of the islands (it covers the period from the 1600s until the mid 1980s).
  • I agree with Ranger Steve's suggestion that the article include more coverage of the tourism industry (including the unique challenges posed by the very limited air routes into the islands) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead currently states that the Falklands War was "undeclared". I've tried to fix this, but am being reverted. An 'undeclared' war is usually a covert war of some kind, or a war fought through proxies. This didn't apply to the high intensity conflict in 1982, especially as both sides recognised the other as formal belligerents for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions and the like and the British declared a formal blockade of the islands (an Argentinian and a British hospital ship actually operated in close proximity off the Falklands for much of the conflict as the British recognised the Argentines right to deploy such a vessel, and vice-versa). Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, your review is much appreciated.

I'll address and/or respond each of your points as I go through them. I will save my answers in this page every so often, but this does not mean I am ignoring the other suggestions (I may need to take breaks here and there).

Responses
  • Addressed. "Enjoy" changed to "have".
  • Addressed. Footnote added. The word "estimated" is accurate. Having taken three advanced (boring & terrifying) statistics courses, I assure you that all statistical data at the macro level is an estimate.
  • I'm actually a qualified demographer :) It's unusual to refer to Census population results as an 'estimate' as they have something close to a 100% response rate and the element of them which are estimated due to non-response is normally pretty minor (though you are, of course, right in pointing out that there are inaccuracies in Census data - the level of education people claim to have is often entirely wrong, for instance): the results are usually presented as 'X people were in the country at the time of the census'. In a small society like the Falklands where they knew exactly how many citizens were out of the country at the time of the Census the figure should be very reliable - the census results summary actually notes that the statistician rang up households who appeared to have filled in their form incorrectly to double check the details with them! Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's neat. I'm still a little doubtful about the total accuracy of the census, but it's a minor matter that does no merit great debate. I trust your professional status, so I will edit as you suggest. Addressed. [:)]--MarshalN20 Talk 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the UN officially calls the islands "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". Their disclaimer at the bottom of the source is specifically meant to be an apology (neutrality declaration) in case the UN naming policy offends anyone.
  • There's two perspectives. One is that both settlements knew about each other, which favors the Spanish/Argentine position, and the other is that the British settlement had no idea the French had settled the islands, which favors the UK's position. I'll try to fix the wording.
I'll continue with this in a little bit.
Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be easiest if you could respond to my comments immediately below each one so that I (and others) can easily track the responses. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks!--MarshalN20 Talk 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, WCM added material into the history section. I think we have addressed everything you recommended. What do you think, yay or nay for FA support? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays. From a quick check of the overall diffs my above comments are addressed, but I have some new ones on the new material:

  • I'm a bit sceptical about whether all the notes at the end of the article are needed. Notes B, G, L don't seem necessary, and I'd suggest reviewing the others.
  • "Thereafter, the archipelago became a harbour for fishing ships; " - provided harbours perhaps? (harbours aren't islands ;) )
  • U.K. or UK? Both appear and consistency is needed (I'd suggest UK, which dominates in the article, but both are basically correct)
  • " international air travel was made possible via RAF Mount Pleasant" - international flights to Argentina took place through Port Stanley Airport before the war (a persistent concern of the pre-war military forces in the Falklands was that the Argentines could invade the island by packing a scheduled flight with troops!)
  • I'm not sure that "RAF Mount Pleasant was improved to allow international air travel outside of Stanley" is correct. My understanding is that RAF Mount Pleasant was built specifically to be able to take very large intercontinental aircraft to allow the British to fly transports in, as well as to accommodate high performance fighter aircraft, and it replaced Stanley as the island's international airport. The opening of this facility permitted intercontinental flights for the first time (I'm not sure if Stanley Airport could accommodate flights from anywhere other than Argentina given that large jet aircraft couldn't safely land there). Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick, Stanley was built for short haul flights, the biggest it could handle safely was the Fokker F28 of LADE. They flew in 737 during the war but it was a tadge risky as the runway really isn't long enough for a jet that big. WCMemail 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that the chief executive is appointed by the governor doesn't seem correct: he or she appears to be appointed by the governor on the advice of MLAs, which is entirely different to the governor appointing them themselves (eg, as its the MLAs who make the decision which the governor then rubber stamps).
Addressed.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the same as another question asked earlier. As in the other case, I cannot find a source that explains what the minister does; all that is known is that the position and the person in charge exist. None of the other featured articles explain the role of their officials.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the present the article says that the islands are self governing except in relation to foreign affairs and defence, so identifying a British minister with responsibility for them seems odd. Judging from the minister's official website [7] it appears that he's responsible for administering British foreign policy regarding the Falklands. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by Nikkimaria

edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the infobox details (like Hugo) don't appear to be sourced anywhere
  • MercoPress: you're sometimes italicizing, sometimes linking, sometimes neither. Be consistent - no italics, pick a linking style.
  • FN4: should identify work
  • Use the loc parameter for short cites to chapters/sections instead of pages
  • FN25, 45, 115: page formatting
  • Why is one Factbook ref a full citation in footnotes while others are short cites?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
  • FN62: formatting
  • FN64: missing italics
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Naval-history.net?
  • FN79: formatting
  • Be consistent in when you include accessdate
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Lesser-known locations or places that have the same name (eg. Cambridge) should include state or country
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for journals
  • Johnson: given link includes full citation details at the top

Comments by Hamiltonstone

edit

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

Resolved comments from hamiltonstone (talk)
Comment from Hamiltonstone. Generally excellent article.
  • The only substantive issue I see is with the history section, which appears completely about the Islands' territorial / political status; there is nothing about its economic history, for example; there is also some overlap between the history section and the subsequenty "sovereignty dispute" subsection.
  • There look to me to be too many external links in the end section. We don't need the World Factbook linked there - if it isn't being used as a source (and therefore in the referecnes), well, Wikipedia is a world factbook; we don't need links to tourism sites; certainly not to two of them, nor a link to a site that aggregates links (DMOZ). Check WP:ELNO and see if there are any others that might be trimmed.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltonstone, thank you so much for the praise and suggested improvements.
In response to the first comment about the history section, which was also pointed out by Ranger Steve, all I can respond is that this section reflects the literature on the topic. All of the history works I have read about the Falklands focus on its political status. For simplicity, this can be seen not only in Wikipedia's own History of the Falkland Islands article, but even in Encyclopaedia Britannica's own history section for the Falkland Islands (please see [8]).
I agree with both you and Steve that this is an issue, because history is more than just the territorial/political aspect of a state; however, I can only work with the sources I have available, and I don't consider that this should be a reason for this article to not be promoted.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree withe the principle - that the coverage shoudl reflect the sources - but not its implementation here. I just had a quick glance at History of the Falkland Islands, and there is some economic / development history there that does not appear to be captured in the history section of this summary article. I don't doubt that the territorial aspect is the dominant one, but it appears to be covered exclusively. There is stuff in the other article on nineteenth century development of agriculture etc, including at least one reference not used in the main article that may cover this (Wigglesworth), as well as some here (which I assume is a reliable source - happy to be corrected). It doesn't need a huge amount of work, but it does need something. The overlap I mentioned can be tweaked as well. I reiterate that the article is generally very good! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source "Falklands.info" is not reliable (no citations are found to where they obtained their narrative), and any mention to it was removed during the GA process some months ago. A brief economic history is presented in the "economics" section of the article. I don't have access to the Wigglesworth source. I will do a backwards-search to find a reliable source that confirms the information on agriculture in the history of the Falklands article, but I can't promise anything as all the sources I have read up to now had no mention of this information.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like weecurrymonster has added the sort of substantive text i was hoping for. Their edit summary says cites are coming later. As long as they do, this is likely to address the bulk of the issue.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hamiltonstone. I also plan to include information on the population decline that Nick mentioned in his review.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hamiltonstone, I consider to have addressed all of the points you suggested. What do you say, pass or nay? Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It is better now.

  • There is still a residual issue about overlap between the history, and the subsection on the sovereignty dispute later on. Roughly speaking, it seems to me the following lines should become part of the history section, and the remainder - which is concentrated purely on current governance situation - stay where it is. Move these:
  • "In 1965, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2065, calling for both states to conduct bilateral negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement of the dispute.[52] Diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina, severed at the outbreak of the Falklands War in 1982, were re-established in 1990.[81]"
  • There is a direct quote in the sentence that ends with footnote K - i think that needs an inline cite separate from the footnote K.

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

Comments by Andrew Gray

edit
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Talk 18:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Andrew Gray (talk)
A few factual points: general points (some added)
  • Operation Tabarin was the 1944 expedition to parts of Antarctica via the Falklands (then seen as the Falklands Islands Dependencies); the 1942 deployment of a garrison battalion was an entirely unconnected operation and Tabarin itself didn't begin being planned until mid-1943.
  • It would probably be worth mentioning the Falkland Islands Dependencies in the early twentieth-century context; this covered a wide range of territory from South Georgia down to the northern Antarctic Peninsula, and during the early part of the century the whaling/sealing here was a major economic activity linked to the Falklands and (AIUI) administered out of Stanley. Perhaps a short paragraph on the bits of 20th-century history which weren't related to sovereignty or the wars, touching on economic development?
  • Government - probably worth mentioning the recent move to paid MLAs rather than part-time, which is quite a significant shift.
  • Under Sovereignty, "The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands and its dependencies" - the FI Dependencies no longer exist as such (they're now South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) and probably this needs a little rewording to avoid the current tense.
  • The article probably needs to explain the concept of "Camp". It's referred to a couple of times (three assembly members, migration, etc) but the reader would probably assume it's another town. Perhaps a line in geography?

Incidentally, let me know if you need any lookups from the Falkland Islands Journal - I have a full run in the library. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thanks for the review and offer. Please, if you have some time, can you help me find if the Falklands have their borders delimited with Argentina, or (in case not) how exactly its maritime borders are set? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to avoid touching on political issues here. :-) Do these maps help? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That serves the purpose! Thanks Andrew.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah! Reading into the history of the "special area" for drilling in 1995 would probably help give more detail - this sits on what looks like the de-facto boundary, and presumably the negotiations touched on the actual status of this line. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray: All suggestions were addressed. Thank you very much for the improvements! What do you think, support yay or nay?--MarshalN20 Talk 14:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the poke. I'll have a read over it with fresh eyes tomorrow and let you know what I think. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cm

edit

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 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Talk 23:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [9], 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 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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? WCMemail 00:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
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)[reply]
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 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. WCMemail 00:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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
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)[reply]
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 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([10] & [11]) 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 Talk 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. WCMemail 00:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an agreement of some sort with regards to the territorial waters delimitation. if not is there a de facto border?

Nergaal (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. WCMemail 09:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what is the amount of land claimed by UK? Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The water claim (in nautical miles and kilometers) is already in the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"this border overlaps with the maritime boundary of Argentina" How much? Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not state how much.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. WCMemail 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

edit

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:
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. WCMemail 22:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink

edit

I stumbled here from an FAC of my own, and thought I'd comment!

  • 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?

All in all, a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Thank you for the review and kind comments. I have addressed all your points in the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

edit

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Falkland_Islands/archive1&oldid=1138460116"