Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index/archive1
Important topic, very well constructed list, clear and concise with a good use of colours, images and pictures. I think it definitely good enough for an FL.
- Support к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 10:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - List references? Michaelas10 (T|C) 15:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Formatted; support then. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Please expand the lead as to explain what the HDI is and what it measures. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Done, copied section from Human Development Index. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support – I've made some edits (noted on the talk page) that I think were required for FL status. It will need updating in 2006-11-09, when the 2006 report is out. Colin°Talk 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Is that right? Maybe the list shouldn't be promoted until the rankings are updated... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wondered about that. I think the 2006 report will show 2004's data, but someone more familiar with these stats might correct me. Clearly the ranking and all the individual values will change. There will probably be changes to the entries in the Unavailable section and the estimates for Taiwan will either be irrelevant or need rediscovered. This will all be true again in a year's time – would we suspend its FL status then until it was revised for 2007? No. That wouldn't be practical. The timing of this FLC is unfortunate, but I think we have to judge this article as it stands, based on 2005's report. If it doesn't get revised in a timely manner, or the revision is poor in some way, then its FL status could be reviewed. Colin°Talk 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the 2006 report will show 2004 data. I also think the timing is irrelevant, since the updating usually doesn't significantly "disturb" the accessibility of the article (usually, it's done in one go).
Ronline ✉ 09:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the 2006 report will show 2004 data. I also think the timing is irrelevant, since the updating usually doesn't significantly "disturb" the accessibility of the article (usually, it's done in one go).
- I wondered about that. I think the 2006 report will show 2004's data, but someone more familiar with these stats might correct me. Clearly the ranking and all the individual values will change. There will probably be changes to the entries in the Unavailable section and the estimates for Taiwan will either be irrelevant or need rediscovered. This will all be true again in a year's time – would we suspend its FL status then until it was revised for 2007? No. That wouldn't be practical. The timing of this FLC is unfortunate, but I think we have to judge this article as it stands, based on 2005's report. If it doesn't get revised in a timely manner, or the revision is poor in some way, then its FL status could be reviewed. Colin°Talk 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Is that right? Maybe the list shouldn't be promoted until the rankings are updated... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. —Nightstallion (?) 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
