Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Territorial evolution of the Caribbean/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 Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [1].

---

Territorial evolution of the Caribbean

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/Territorial evolution of the Caribbean/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria for promotion, but will quickly make any changes deemed necessary by the reviewers.. Esemono (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now:
  • I'm not sure a near-identical caption is required for every image.
  • Need dates. It's not sufficient, for example, to say "Barbados became independent in 1966"; give the exact date.
  • This is slight vanity speaking (since I originated these types of lists :), but I think the images need text labels rather than relying on color; color alone makes it impossible to see which is which in a monochrome environment or with someone who is colorblind.
  • Each image, IMO, doesn't need the graphic timeline. That's a tool for the animation; since each image includes the date (well, year, more on that in a moment), the timeline is superfluous.
  • You currently have one image per year; need one image per change.
  • It's okay to remove obsolete countries from the labels, especially in the individual maps.
    • Yes, that means you should use one set of maps for the article, and a second, slightly modified, set for the animation.
  • For a map including North, Central, and South America, it's bad to label a part of the United States as "America"
  • IMO, possessions should be listed separately from lands that are part of a particular country. Specifically, I see at least:
    • Puerto Rico should be listed separately; it is a possession of, not part of, the United States.
    • The Cayman Islands are a territory, not part of, the UK
    • Now, St. Martin and St. Barts appear to be part of France, though not an integral part like Guadeloupe is, so I'm not sure an extra map is needed for 2003. (This may seem out of place but I initially had a long bit explaining why a 2003 map was needed =p)
  • You should mention from whom these nations are becoming independent.
  • You don't need to mention that a nation joined the Commonwealth of Nations.
  • Belize is marked as independent starting from 1964; however, as the text notes, it didn't actually declare independence until 1981. It could be argued that it also be marked disputed between Belize and Guatemala, however since Guatemala never acted on that claim, that could be seen as superfluous.
  • This is the biggest nitpick ever but the Panama Canal Zone was not a straight band.
  • I might suggest that the British occupation of Guadeloupe, however brief, should be mentioned, at least in a 'disputed' mark.
  • I'm impressed. When I was planning these things out I had intended to simply omit Florida, South America, and Central America, and only deal with the changes in the islands. But this is probably a better idea. --Golbez (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed the captions, you're right they don't add anything. Added specific dates for independence days and from who they became independant. I'll try and work on the others later. -- Esemono (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"This is a timeline of the territorial evolution of Latin America and the Caribbean" FLs don't begin like this anymore, look at recently promoted FLs to get an idea of a more engaging start. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to rain on this any more, but there is no such country as Holland, as least not in the last century or so. It is actually a region of the Netherlands. Also, the see also section's animations really slow the whole article down. Replace those with still maps. Reywas92^Talk 16:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They should be replaced with links to the articles, since most of those do have articles. However, many seem random - there's no reason to have a link to the evolution of Poland in this article. Or Australia. That's what the category is for. The US, Mexico, South America, etc. make sense, since they are part of this article. However, that brings me to another issue... the list makes no mention of the U.S. Civil War or the Confederacy, of which Florida was a part for several years. --Golbez (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose
  • The note section is unreferenced
  • I see some citation need tags floating around
  • Gallery of images in see also is irrelevant to the topic being discussed
  • A side issue: not sure if the images in each section are even needed b/c they are already in the animation

—Chris! _ct 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The images in each section are indeed useful outside of the animation; however, only if they were truly standalone illustrations. They aren't. (See Territorial evolution of Canada for an example of how the individual images can be different from the animation frames. More context given, a snapshot of a particular period, etc.) Also, it's not right to expect a reader to have to sit through a lengthy animation to get a picture of the particular period they're reading about. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get what you mean.—Chris! _ct 02:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a withdrawal; while I admire the work put into this list, and the goals of it, it's months from being featured quality. Every image needs redoing, and the prose is disintegrating as the editor tries to keep up with improving it. I hope it would not insult the creator if I said I wanted to try making new images for it, based on his work of course. --Golbez (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Did some work and made the following changes:
  • Changed the images so that there is no superfluous timeline.
  • Changed ``America`` to ``USA``
  • Changed Belize`s status to disputed from 1964 till its full independence in 1981.
  • Changed Holland to Netherlands
  • Added the events of the U.S. Civil War and Florida in the Confederacy
  • Added references to the notes and moved other items into the actual list.
  • Added better representation of the Panama Canal
  • removed the gallery of images
  • mentioned from whom these nations are becoming independent.
  • Found references for all the citation needed tags

And no I won`t be insulted if you use the images, I was trying to get them up online so that people can make their own animations or different more specific lists. -- Esemono (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• The GIF seems to leave black marks where text has been added then removed making it painfully difficult to read at the end.
• Using the individual images down the page, they all need alt text
• See WP:DASH, spaced hyphen seperators should be ndashes
• We don't avoid having bold with links in the opening sentence.
• Is any of Territorial evolution of the Caribbean#1700 referenced?
• References are a mess, some missing publishers, accessdates, some with unnecessary "format=HTML" fields.
• All the images need more specific descriptions, and some need better layout: e.g. File:Political Evolution of Central America and the Caribbean 1860 na.png looks very cluttered. Legend is not consistently aligned. It is not stated what two colours together mean, I could guess but I shouldn't have to.
• Prose needs thorough copyediting
  • "since the Christopher Columbus" the?
  • "wiped out many of the Carib amerindians" capital A
  • "pre-war coniditons on the island" typo

I think this nomination was a bit premature, and I would advise withdrawing, making the suggested changes, and getting this list looked at in a peer review before returning. Good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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