From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Europe was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Geography (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Europe (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Europe:

To get to good article level

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify: ADD inline citations - particularly geography to biology sections and for statistics throughout the article

Economy of Europe[edit]

I think this would be in the economy section: Europe has a long history as the world's richest and most productive part of the world. At the time of Christ's birth is estimated western European output per capita was approximately 30% higher than the world average. Year 1500 had this advantage increased to 40%.[1] After the development of science and the Industrial Revolution in Europe grew its lead quickly, in 1700 produced an average European almost 70% more than world's average population, and in 1850 was taken over the entire 150%. Around the year 1900 was Western Europe's leading role as the world's most productive area has been taken over by the former European colony of the United States, but Europe has continued to belong to the world's richest, most productive and knowledge-producing regions.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12 January 2011

  1. ^ a b Madisson, Angus (2009). [ Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2006 AD].

Chinese Name Change[edit]

I deleted the following sentence from this page:

which is an abbreviation of the transliterated name Ōuluóbā zhōu (歐羅巴洲)

I did this because, I have never heard this term though I am a speaker of Chinese. I asked some native Chinese speakers, and they also had never heard this term. I have found any research indicating that the term 欧洲 is an abbreviation of 欧罗巴州, as the deleted sentence suggests, though 欧罗巴 is direct transliteration of the word Europe into Chinese. The word was used on the Chinese Language Wikipedia page refers to 欧罗巴 only as a transliteration for the Greek word "Europa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenbite (talkcontribs) 27 January 2012

Secular populations[edit]

At the very bottom of the article it is mentioned that countries like Sweden, France and German have particularly high proportions of non-religious citizen -- the same can be said for Denmark, which, afaik is has a practically entirely non-religious population. A few people are religious but they are by far the minority and mostly consist of immigrants (both christian and muslim). I also noticed that no citations backup any of the claims. Please don't be fooled by the fact that a lot of people are members of "folkekirken" -- it has nothing to do with being religious (most member automatically join because their parents are members and very few ever think about it being possible to leave it).

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the work cleaning up this article. Good to see that apart from some minor issues you fixed, it seems this article is not too bad as is. Arnoutf (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Countries?[edit]

Good Morning,
I removed from the template the words "6 disputed countries", since this expression is not present neither in the article nor in the list given near the information. Moreover, it is unsourced. Please feel free to readd with a reliable source, nevertheless considering that the main focus of the article as from the first sentence of the introduction is about Europe in a geographic sense, not political, and if for "disputed countries" are considered those politically but not geographically European they should be mentioned as such in the template. Alex2006 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, Kutsuit, can you please explain me the meaning of these 6 disputed countries? In text I could not find anything about them. Alex2006 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Do not address me. Address the content, not the person, or you'll be reported. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I address you, Kutsuit, since you reverted me, so apparently you don't agree with my edit. Alex2006 (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe Kutsuit is referring to Kosovo, South Ossetia and such. See List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe#Partially recognised states  NQ  talk 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Now it is clear. I will change the denomination and the link in the template, to avoid misunderstandings. Alex2006 (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms[edit]

There are many missing coat of arms in the European countries list and Greece's coat of arms is mistaken. See Coat_of_arms_of_Greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

biggest cities ?[edit]

What else do you need ? That list is wrong from beginning. I believe we should set a designated source for it. Denizyildirim (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. The current list is sourced to one source (see note 1), which has all the necessary definitions and criteria. -- (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Then wikipedia is wrong too. Denizyildirim (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Both of those lists are of 'city proper' (administrative boundaries). Here we have chosen to base the list on urban area because urban area is more representative of the size of a city then the administrative boundaries. Some cities don't even have clear administrative boundaries, such as London. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you friend, but we also don't know the urban populations of Istanbul and London, and they may as well be bigger than London, so why not use city proper as all of them have that one. Or list them alphabetically ? Denizyildirim (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with London is illustrative, but not unique. London is divided into many administrative units that are all fairly small. For example the city of London has only about 7500 inhabitants (smaller than many villages!). (similar issues occur for Athens, Rome and to some extent Paris). The different ways in which countries deal with splitting up urban areas into smaller administrative units makes straightforward comparison irrelevant. Urban area is a measure developed by international organization with the aim to make comparisons possible in spite of differences in dealing with administrative units and definitions of city proper. Arnoutf (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Why Rome? Rome is just the opposite. Alex2006 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Geography images.[edit]

The choice of images in this section is extremely unbalanced. 4 out of the 6 images show the Mediterranean (the actual water thereof).

In addition the choice of the other 2 images increases this bias towards the southern parts of Europe. Currently the most southern image are at 35 degrees North (Cyprus - if that is unambiguously consider Europe at all); which is about the most southern point of Europe. The Northern images are at about 45 degrees. Norways most northern islands extend beyond 80 degrees. Hence the pictures represent less than 25% of the North South range of Europe. We show no fjords, no polar seas, no northern marshes etc etc.

This was not a big issue before, but with the addition of 3 pictures today the balance is really off now. I have been bold and trimmed the number of pictures. When adding new ones (if we want to) we should ensure they represent the whole of Europe, and not only touristic sun destination. Arnoutf (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How many continents?[edit]

I would appreciate some advice from the regulars about the contentious material regarding the number of continents. I have reverted to the version which had the reliable sources and which seems to me to be the best version. You can take it from there. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that continents are somewhat ill defined. Especially the Europe-Asia division around the Ural mountain range does not follow the general idea that continents are a continuous landmass. However since this article is named Europe and not Eurasia, that should not matter too much and we should probably follow the Europe-Asia division; at least here, and leave the tricky issues for the continent article. Arnoutf (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Arnoutf. Moreover, the used source does not give us enough information: I would like to know who are the geographers and the countries which define Eurasia as a continent, otherwise there is the risk of giving undue weight to this info, putting it in the lead. Alex2006 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
But the National Geographic reference is pretty clear about that. It says "by convention there are seven continents", which is a strong statement favouring the seven-continent model. It then goes on to explain the six and five-continent configurations. So there is no bias for the six-continent model as claimed in this edit. I think Nat Geo is a very reliable source. Now, if the issue of the six and five continents has to appear at the lead per WP:UNDUE, this is a different matter and should depend on similar intros to articles of the other continents. But personally I think it is ok, since the six and five-continent models are recognised alternatives and are specifically mentioned by Nat Geo. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure what you are saying here. Do you suggest to include the six/five continent interpretation, or do you suggest not to include. My point of view would be that this is all very relevant to the continent article (where it is discussed in some detail including alternative 6 continent versions (Americas - or Eurasia)). As this article is about Europe, and not Eurasia, I would stick with a continent definition that defines Europe as its own continent. Whether that would be a 6 continent definition with the Americas as a single continent or the 7 continent definition, would be unduly detailed for the Europe article in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I am saying three things: 1. The editor who reverted the Nat Geo source using the edit-summary: Reverting sudden changes that is bias in favor of the 6 continent model that is not universally accepted. is not correct because the Nat Geo source mentions all three (7,6,5) models and also specifies that the 7-continent model is the one used by "convention". 2. The coverage of the seven, six or five-continent models at the lead of this article should depend on similar coverage in the leads of other continent articles. 3. FWIW, I am not opposed to including some information about the alternative continent models at the lead but at the same time I keep an open mind for alternative cases. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
All clear, but I repeat that I would like to know which geographers and which countries are for the six continents model. The statement of NG is too vague: physical geography is a science, and as such we should have precise (not just clear) references. If the six continent model is supported only by the kingdom of Roccacannuccia and its geographers, is one thing, if it is taught in the Russian schools, it is a quite different thing, and in that case it can assume a quite different weight in the article. Alex2006 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we leave this discussion for elsewhere by rephrasing the opening line as "Europe (i/ˈjʊərəp/ or /ˈjɜrəp/[2]) is one of the world's continents." and leave it at that, in any case for the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
At the lead of Australia (continent) it says: It is the smallest of the seven traditional continents in the English conception.. Maybe we can go by that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
OK for me. Alex2006 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Works for me too. Arnoutf (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Great. Perhaps we can modify the phrase "English conception", which I'm not sure what it means, to: traditional continents according to the conventional definition or something along those lines. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the phrase either, but I guess it is meant to give to which point of view it is traditional (see Continent#Number_of_continents), where Japan, Russia and some Eastern European countries apparently traditionally use the 6 continent (with Eurasia) and Hispanic countries apparently traditionally use a 6 continent versions (with Europe and Asia, but with the Americas as 1). So I think the phrase English conception means something like "in the English speaking tradition".
So perhaps: traditional continents following the traditional definition of English speaking countries might cover that? Arnoutf (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. But are we sure all English-speaking countries follow that convention? And are there any non-English-speaking countries who also follow it? In that case perhaps we should just use "the conventional definition" just like Nat Geo. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems this article is supposed to be exclusively about Europe as a "continent". If so, then there should be no references to the EU, Council of Europe, or any other organizations or notions that define Europe differently than the traditional 7 continent model (which should be called the 7 continent "truth" if it's the only model that's accptable) Also the article should be retitled "Continent of Europe" or "European Continent". At present, some diversity of interpretation is present in the form of references to the EU et al. But what about the alternative idea of Europe as a subcontinent, as is implied by the 6 continent model that treats Eurasia as a single continent. If India is a subcontinent by virtue of being separated from the rest of the Eurasian landmass by a range of mountains, then surely Europe can be interpreted in the same way due to its separation by a range of mountains. If not, then why is Europe a full continent and India/Pakistan et al only a subcontinent? What is the physiographical, geographical, and geological logic of this double standard? I tried to introduce this to the article using a referenced source, but another editor, AbelM7, has reverted me several times insisting the Europe is a full continent and only a full continent, and that no other interpretation is acceptable, regardless of the physical evidence or any referenced source. Another editor backed me last week and reverted AbelM7 to my version. However M7 has reverted once again, so I need to know the view of other editors as to whether it's acceptable to present the alternative interpretation of Europe as a subcontinent with a referenced source by a published author. Please review the recent edit history of the past week or so before weighing in on this issue.
p.s. I'm aware it says just below the main title that the article is about Europe the "continent", but is there any reason it can't be changed to say it's about Europe, "the continent or subcontinent"? Would this be a heresy despite the supporting physical evidence? Why do the terms of reference for the article have to be so narrow and biased? I suppose I could create a new and separate article about the European physical subcontinent, but I think it makes more sense for both interpretations to be in one article since it's the same landmass that's being discussed. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 11:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)