Talk:List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on September 24, 2012.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 13, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
August 13, 2008 Featured list candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured list

Pre-FLC comments[edit]

  • Avoid bold links in the lead sentence.
    • Done There are some featured lists that have this, and I thought correcting it makes it a bit redundant, but ok. --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would reduce the size of the lead image a little, maybe 300-400 px?
    • Done Updated map to my own up-to-date svg, reduced thumb size to 400px, though I still think it could be bigger. --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Five paras in the lead is a little too much, maybe make it four?
    • Done edited and compressed a bit; now 4 --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • put (CTBT) after the first expanded version so when you use the abbreviation we all know what you're on about.
  • 5->five (and all numbers below 10)
  • "The instrument of ratification is deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations." - I don't have a clue what this "instrument" is?!
    • I think "Instrument of Ratification" is a pretty common term to describe the formal paper that includes the necessary signatures for a government to express its ratification of a treaty. Unfortunately there's not really a wiki article to link to to explain that.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Personal but I'd put the summary at the end.
    • Not Done I Guess it's personal as well, but I'd prefer it before the list, because the list is so long. If consensus dictates otherwise I'd be happy to change it.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "ime.[6]Nine" - space needed after the ref.
  • Listing is a dull heading - why not List of signatories?
    • Done Changed to listing of states, because not all are signatories.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Avoid blank cells - an en or em dash is usually put in with a reference saying why there's nothing in there. Or, write something before the table that says "If no signatory date is present... If not ratification date is available..." - it's needed because I'd be confused if this lists the "signatories" and somewhere like Cuba hasn't got a signatory date, what are they doing in the list?
    • Done Good idea. Added explanation at top as opposed to adding a bunch of dashes (but if I still need to add the dashes, let me know). I preferred to keep a list of all countries regardless of their status in one big sortable list, but I don't know for sure what's best.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Refs 4 and 5 need accessdates.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments! --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional states, ... - citation needed[edit]

I added the following note: "Additional states, currently not ratified the treaty, but having nuclear reactors operational or partially completed in the past are: Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Taiwan (not even annex 1) and Thailand." that was tagged with "citation needed". The note itself links to List_of_nuclear_reactors, where these countries are listed and the article itself lists signatories, ratifications, annex 1 and 2 states... Maybe some clarification is needed. Alinor (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no "Parties"[edit]

This article should be named "List of ratifiers . . .." The CTBT is not yet in force. A state can only be a party to a treaty that is in force. NPguy (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the present wording is not ideal; an alterantive: list of states signatories of CTBT; covering all categories here... L.tak (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That's even better. NPguy (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at this question again, I found this UN reference, which distinguishes between "Parties" to a treaty that has entered into force and "Contracting States" that have ratified and are prepared to be bound by a treaty that has not yet entered into force. I suggest changing the title to "Contracting States of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty." An alternative would be to keep the current title and explain in the lead that they aren't really parties since the treaty hasn't entered into force. Preferences? NPguy (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I was going to say that those are pretty synonymous to me, but indeed the reference makes the distinction; and it does carry some weight, as it's from the depositary of the treaty... L.tak (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)