Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of countries by Human Development Index[edit]

List of countries by Human Development Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --Trialpears (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated this article last spring at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index/archive2 but due to life being a mess and me being very busy in the weeks after that I withdrew it. Now I've incorporated the feedback there, done some improvements together with the big annual update and guaranteed there are no data errors and some other minor things. There is one improvement that I would like to make which is merging the two maps in the lead, but due to lack of participants in the talkpage discussion we could not reach a consensus on the matter. --Trialpears (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): while the table has column scopes, it is missing a caption and rowscopes, and has column headers in the middle of the table.

  • Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
  • For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1 || ...` it should be `!scope="row"| 1`, with the rest of the row on its own line. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`
  • Column headers in the middle of tables like "Very high human development" are contraindicated as screen reading software trips on them, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. Please remove.
--PresN 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PresN Thanks! I've added a caption and have added row headers. I think the country name is a better row header than the rank and therefore chose to make that the row header. For the High/Medium/Low Human development index labels I think they are a significant improvement for sighted readers since it makes it easy to see if a given value is concidered high or low. I want to retain them if possible while making them accessible, but if that isn't possible I guess they have to go. They are not column headers, but rather colpsan 6 items with a background color identical to headers. I'm not sure if that fixes the accessibility issues though. There is also a significant difference between these divisions and the ones on your link with these not being necessary to make sense of the table. --Trialpears (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, the issue with colspans like that is that where screen readers would normally read out (to give a 2-cell example) "Country or Territory Norway; HDI 2019 data (2020 report) 0.957", with a colspan like that it some would do "Country or Territory Very high human development Norway; HDI 2019 data (2020 report) Very high human development 0.957", e.g. repeating the colspan like it's a header for everything instead of treating it like a row (which even if it did, it would try to connect it to the columns that it doesn't apply to. It would work better if it was a column on its own (since the table is pretty narrow) or split into different tables. Incidentally, they don't actually work as-is for sighted readers either in the first table- if you sort the table, the "Very high" row isn't moving, and when I sort by the last column 3 times they all stack together. --PresN 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, this revision sorting the Very high human development worked as intended, but apparently designating it a row header breaks it. Even then the sorting with the dividers is a bit unintuitive (change over 5 years and average annual HDI growth isn't applicable to the dividers). Splitting the table was how it was done before but it made it a pain to see thing like which country has the fastest HDI growth. I've removed them. The information is still readily available in several places. --Trialpears (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pote2639 you seem to have thoughts about the ranking headers judging by your revert. Your opinion would be much appreciated. --Trialpears (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trialpears I think the ranking headers are still needed, as most country pages are still using the ranking in their HDI indicator. without it, it would be a bit confusing to most readers. --pote2639 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pote2639 Idealy I think they are an improvement but due to technical limitations they are problematic. I've tried getting the sorting to work properly with them while having proper row headers, but from T6740 I've gathered that's impossible with the current software (using html isn't an option either since thead tags apparently aren't supported). On top of that we have the screen reader issues PresN is more familiar with that also don't seem to be solvable with the dividers. I'm not that concerned about not including the HDI categories in the list since they are both explained in prose and clearly shown in the map caption. It is also not particularly important to see the categories in the list since you have tons of other countries to compare to but in country pages you only get one for most people basically meaningless number. --Trialpears (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • In addition to the above (is that resolved? I can't really tell).........
  • Refs are not in correct numerical order at the end of the second paragraph of the lead
  • "The indicators used in the 2020 report was" => "The indicators used in the 2020 report were" (indicators is plural)
  • "There are dimensions of human development that it doesn't consider" => "There are dimensions of human development that it does not consider" (truncations should not be used)
  • UNESCO, UNDESA, IMF, OECD should be written out in full on first usage
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude All done. Worth noting that I gave the acronym for UNESCO even though it isn't used anywhere since I believe it to be the more well known name and more likely readers recognize than the expanded form. This is supported by the page title being the acronym. Regarding the accessibility issues with the tables discussed above all rows and columns have a header with the scope specified and a caption. The dividers have also been removed again so that is resolved. --Trialpears (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why 189 countries? Why are the others not included?
  • "The first human development index was" why not use the abbreviation?
  • "as GDP. The" explain before using the abbreviation.
  • "a long and healthy life, knowledge, and decent living standards" is this a quote? It doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic.
  • "Various indicators are" that links to economic indicator yet this all about indicators other than economic...
  • "three indexes" isn't the plural of index indices?
  • "from UN agencies" United Nations
  • "Rarely when one of the indicators" should there be a comma after Rarely?
  • "missing cross-country regression" comma after missing.
  • "methodology updates HDI values" comma after updates.
  • "years.[5][4]" order.
  • "The Human Development Index has" HDI
  • "at Radboud University where" context, where is this uni?
  • "World map representing..." fragment, no full stop.
  • "Average annual HDI growth..." same.
  • (2010-2019) - en-dash, not hyphen.
  • ISBNs should be consistently formatted.
  • Ref 2 and ref 10 look identical?
  • You link "United Nations Development Programme" on and off in the refs, be consistent.
  • Ref 11 is missing that as its publisher.
  • As is ref 12.
  • And 13.
  • And ref 14 is missing the website (for consistency).

That's it on a quick run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Thanks, your comments are much appreciated! I've taken care of them if I don't comment on the point specifically.
  • Why 189 countries? Why are the others not included? Those are the ones that have data available in the human development report. It is the 193 UN member states except North Korea, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, Somalia and Tuvalu, the non-member observer state Palestine (but not the other observer state, the Vatican/Holy See) as well as Hong Kong. Including other sources would open a gigantic can of worms with tons of discussion about what counts as a country and whether a given source is reliable. I'm happy to have a longer discussion on this if you want to.
  • Oh I misinterpreted the question then. It currently just states "The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) compiles the Human Development Index (HDI) of 189 countries in the annual Human Development Report. " as the first sentence. I guess it isn't explicit that is the reason only 189 countries are included but I can't see how to state that without making it clunky. I guess I could add some text just above the list explaining it. --Trialpears (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first human development index was" why not use the abbreviation? Done, slighlty rephrased.
  • "as GDP. The" explain before using the abbreviation. Expanded the abbreviation. It is only used once.
  • "a long and healthy life, knowledge, and decent living standards" is this a quote? It doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic. The direct quote is The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi. "A long and healthy life" is consistently the way they refer to it and I don't believe it would be proper to modify it here, although I called it just health in the first sentance.
  • "Various indicators are" that links to economic indicator yet this all about indicators other than economic... Yep, not optimal. I think there should be some kind of link for indicator. I changed it to Indicator (statistics) which is accurate nut not particularly in depth.
  • "three indexes" isn't the plural of index indices? I've seen both in use, but I think indices is considered more proper and is unambiguously correct. Changed.
  • "at Radboud University where" context, where is this uni? Changed to "Radboud University in the Netherlands".
  • ISBNs should be consistently formatted. Fixed now. Not entirely certain what convention to use, copied the one at WP:ISBN.
  • Ref 2 and ref 10 look identical? One was supposed to be table 1 and one table 2. Fixed now.
  • You link "United Nations Development Programme" on and off in the refs, be consistent. Settled on unlinked since it's linked first thing in the article proper.
I also made sure the minus sign is used for negative numbers and added some other missing websites for consistency. --Trialpears (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Sdkb

Overall, this looks quite good! Here are some comments. Some of these things are more significant whereas others are extremely nitpicky, just questions, or may reflect my own preferences moreso than any requirements. I look forward to supporting once the significant things are addressed. Also, I know you plan to be busy in the near future, so please don't feel any pressure to respond quickly.

  • The lead images seem to have a lot of gray areas for territories like Greenland and small islands. Since the HDI is by country and Greenland is part of Denmark, should Greenland be coloured the same? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's certainly an argument to be made for that, but I think it would be misleading. Greenland is in practice very different from Denmark with their own legislature and significantly lower performance on basically all indicators that are published for just greenland. Sadly it isn't included in the sub-national HDI list, but according to the source cited at Greenland[1] it would fall into the high human development index and not very high. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of Greenland politics is limited, but given how many types of external territories there are, I worry that we're opening up a massive can of worms by allowing ourselves to choose arbitrarily which get included and which don't. Previewing a bit of the contents: Is French Guiana any less a part of France than Kaliningrad Oblast is Russia, or are we just colouring it gray unlike Kalingrad because it's HDi is presumably more different? If we're omitting or calculating separately parts of countries with different HDIs on the national list, how big and how external do they have to be to count and why are we still calling it the national list if it includes sub-national components? Was data from Puerto Rico used in calculating the U.S.'s HDI, and if so why isn't it then included as part of the U.S.? As you can see, this gets extremely messy, thus why I think the best solution might be to go with a strict "if it's part of the country, it's coloured the same as the country" standard as the least gray line available, even if it ends up being misleading for places like Greenland. Alternatively, if the HDI report itself includes a map anywhere, we could just go with that map as closely as possible and maybe include a footnote saying that's what we did. That would be a nice out, and it may be what the map already does. I'm courtesy pinging Portuguese Wikipedia admin @Allice Hunter, who it looks like uploaded the most recent version of the map and might be able to speak to the decisions they made in putting it together.
    Overall, world political maps are a minefield (the current consensus is for List of sovereign states not to have one at all). But ultimately this issue is on the picky side and Wikipedia:PERFECTION is impossible, so I'll be satisfied so long as we're able to explain what general approach we used to make the decisions we did in case anyone ever challenges one of them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JackintheBox is probably also interested as they've worked with the maps. The most recent HDR does not include any maps with political boundaries and I presume the UN wouldn't bring up such a minefield in previous reports either so that's not an option. I think you've made a good case for including all territories being the only reasonable option without opening all the cans of worms and possible OR based reasoning. It feels bad to intentionally introducing material that is likley to be at least somewhat misleading, but I would be willing to make a new map, but will wait for responses from Allice and Jack first as it would take some time to get a grip on SVGs. The caption should mention that territories are included though. --Trialpears (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trialpears and Sdkb Greenland, although part of Denmark, has its own autonomy and it is not common for organizations to include Greenland data in information for Denmark. Data for Greenland is released separately from that for Denmark most of the time. For this reason, they do not include Greenland in most indexes and so most maps do not have data for Greenland (the same thing happens with French Guiana, although it's not autonomous as Greenland). I always try to make my maps complete and informative but unfortunately I didn't find up-to-date data for Greenland's HDI so I didn't colour it on the map. As for Puerto Rico, it is part of the United States but it is not an incorporated territory and therefore it is not included in the data for the US. I could find specific data for Puerto Rico, but I would have to ask myself if the source is the same and if the data is for the same year as the one released by the UN, because I don't think it's a good idea to use several different sources for the same map or include data from different years. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 22:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some more thinking and have come to the conclusion the maps probably are fine as they are. When there are good reason to believe the label would be misleading (Greenland, French Guiana) including it would be detrimental. I think not specifying anything is completely fine in such a situation. There is also significant doubt if the regions are actually accounted for in the data used to generate the HDI for the country, especially since it has to come from several different sources for each dimension. I think my criteria would be something like not including territories if there's reason to believe data for the region wasn't included when calculating the HDI of the country opting for not specifying if uncertain. This isn't clear cut by any means and has the possibility to get messy, but I don't believe there's been much dispute about the maps in the past. No information is better than potentially bad information. --Trialpears (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second map in the article (which I constructed) I shaded the five French overseas departments/regions the same colour as metropolitan France, as they are integral parts of France. I shaded the French overseas territories/collectivities (New Caledonia, St Pierre et Miquelon etc.) grey as they are not. However the map above (not constructed by me) shades the overseas departments grey as well. For consistency and to reflect their status I believe they should be shaded the same colour as metropolitan France. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 06:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb thoughts on just making sure the maps are consistent in what they include and using consensus for what to include? Consistency could also be resolved by not having two redundant maps, just saying. --Trialpears (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good to me. Thanks Allice and Jack for stopping by to help here! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
World map of countries by Human Development Index scores in increments of 0.050 (based on 2019 data, published in 2019).
  • Very high HDI
      ≥ 0.900
  •   0.850–0.899
  •   0.800–0.849
  • High HDI
  •   0.750–0.799
  •   0.700–0.749
  • Medium HDI
      0.650–0.699
  •   0.600–0.649
  •   0.550–0.599
  • Low HDI
      0.500–0.549
  •   0.450–0.499
  •   0.400–0.449
  •   ≤ 0.399
  •   Data unavailable
  • @Allice Hunter and JackintheBox: I've looked at the maps and I see discrepancies with French Guiana, Puerto Rico, Mayotte and Guam. I don't have any clear opinion on what to do with them, they are even more ambiguous than the Greenland and Kaliningrad examples and I'm more uncertain about how their relations are within their countries. Since Jack seems quite confident about the French territories I would suggest going with that. Allice says that Puerto Rico shouldn't be included as it is an unincorporated territory and data from there likely isn't included. The same presumably goes for Guam making me think not coloring them in is for the best. You probably have a way easier time to modify the maps than me so if you could do it that would be wonderful. Otherwise I'll figure it out. I'm guessing you haven't changed your minds on the one map with HDI groups in the caption, but I'll put it here just in case I think that would be the nicest solution. This version is also adjusted to display the caption better on all screen sizes and not to separate the group labels and the first caption item in the group. --Trialpears (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trialpears: I just changed the map and French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion have been shaded. I don't see a problem with having two maps, as long as they don't contradict each other. But I think the JackintheBox's map should definitely be converted to SVG format, as the PNG format is not advisable for maps as it is of much lower quality, especially when it is zoomed in. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 12:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allice Hunter: Okay, I'll reconstruct the second map this time using Inkspace and File:BlankMap-World.svg as a template. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 13:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allice Hunter: Whoops, I spent two hours constructing the map from scratch, and then found that I had already made and uploaded an SVG map for HDI this January! I've replaced the PNG file on the article with my SVG version. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 13:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it wasn't a complete waste of time; the original map I made shaded Western Sahara with Morocco, and Macau with China. My newly uploaded version corrects these issues. 😁 JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 13:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JackintheBox: I just remembered that a long time ago I had asked you to create an SVG version, and you said you would. I completely forgot about it. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 14:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to ask you for permission to remove Antarctica from your map, as the other maps do not include it. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 14:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allice Hunter: Certainly, feel free to edit the map! JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 14:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • To resolve one of the limitations the inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI) was introduced in the 2010 report which stated that "the IHDI is the actual level of human development (accounting for inequality)" and "the HDI can be viewed as an index of 'potential' human development (or the maximum IHDI that could be achieved if there were no inequality)". doesn't need to have quotes, if I understand our norms about quotations correctly. There's also some redundancy, as it's pretty self-apparent that something called the "inequality-adjusted human development index" is the human development index adjusted for inequality. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are both direct quotes, but I think it probably is better to paraphrase it and have done so which also condensed it a bit. I was considering adding a bit more information of how it is adjusted but it is more calculated then the regular HDI and not core to the article. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's definitely better! I added a few commas to help make it easier to parse the sentences, as some of them are a little long. I think there was a slight grammar issue with several aspects of the index has received criticism including the choice of included factors, the relative weight given to the factors, and a single number giving an overly simplistic view of human development. The way the first part of the sentence is structured, the list in the second part needs to be of aspects of the index. "the relative weight given to the factors" and "the choice of included factors" are both aspects of the list, but "a single number giving an overly simplistic view of human development" isn't. I changed it to "the perceived oversimplification of using a single number per country", which reads better to me, but feel free to tweak it further.
    Reading through the last paragraph of the intro now, I'm seeing a little awkwardness and redundancy in that several things are brought up multiple times. For instance, lack of granularity is raised three times, first as something others have noted, then as something the UN itself has noted, and finally as something Radboud has tried to address. I think you might find it a lot easier to write if you changed it away from its current structure of outsider reception, then UN's own understanding of limitations, then attempts to address flaws. Instead, go by issue, i.e. once you bring up inequality, put the mention of IHDI right next to it, before moving on to the next limitation. Does that make sense/seem like it would help? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to rewrite it in a way to only bring up the topics once. I also felt it would be natural to include the PHDI in the new structure and did so. I hope it makes as much sense as I think it does but it's a bit hard to take on the normal reader perspective after trying this many different versions. --Trialpears (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I definitely relate to the challenges of writing about something you're wrapped up in the weeds with. Here's what I would do for that paragraph; feel free to take/adopt whatever aspects of it you'd like. There are some issues in the current version like the "Among them" sentence being a fragment that will definitely need to be resolved.

    The HDI is the most widely used indicator of human development and changed how people view the concept. However, several aspects of the index have received criticism. Some scholars have criticized the limited factors it considers, noting omissions like level of participation in governance or level of inequality. In response to the latter concern, the UNDP introduced the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDP) in its 2010 report. Others have criticized the perceived oversimplification of using a single number per country. To reflect developmental differences within countries, a Subnational HDI (SHDI) featuring data for more than 1600 regions was introduced in 2018 by the Global Data Lab at Radboud University in the Netherlands. In 2020, the UNDP introduced another index, the planetary pressures–adjusted HDI, which discounts the scores of countries with a higher ecological footprint.

    {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb I've had another go at rewriting the section based on your proposal. I've completely removed the limitations-criticism differentiation as it probably wasn't helpful. That means that while participation in government is regularly brought up by the UNDP as a limitation I can't find academics actually criticising the index for it. Instead I talk about gender inequality as well which the UNDP has tried to resolve with the Gender Development Index. It is quite different from the other ones and hasn't been as well received as IHDI though. I feel like it is a bit better now, but I'm still not 100% satisfied. --Trialpears (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's improved a lot since we started tweaking it! I agree it's not 100% perfect yet, so if anyone else wants to provide further suggestions that might help. But it's no longer a concern for withholding my support. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is quite focused on how the HDI is defined/calculated. Is there pertinent information we would want to include about how the measure has been received by others or used beyond the UN? The last paragraph of the lead seems to hint at the existence of some critiques or criticism of HDI's limitations, but there's no secondary sourcing delving into that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, much of which is from the 90s when it was new and decently different on a technical level. There's also some internally at the UN or very narrow discussion. I will write a few sentances, but it is getting late right now. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences The Human Development Report includes the 193 United Nations member states as well as Palestine and Hong Kong. However, it is not available for North Korea, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, Somalia and Tuvalu. seem to include a contradiction, as North Korea, Monaco, etc. are UN member states. Is it that they're discussed in the report but just not given a score? If so, we should state that more directly. It may be worth noting the absence of Taiwan and any other similar omissions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those countries are included in the report and some other indicators or statistics are given for them. The "it" in the sentance was intended to reffer to the human development index but I see now that it looks like I'm talking about the human development report. About non-UN members I added Other non-UN members, such as Taiwan, are not included. This is a possible can of worm but I think that's fine. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a small further wording tweak; it looks good now! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how necessary it is to have a key for increase/decrease/steady. They seem pretty self-explanatory to me, and the icons include tooltips to make it extra clear. Others might disagree, though. If we do keep it, formatting it as a mini-table similar to what was done here might be a little neater than a bulleted list. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since tooltips aren't availible on mobile that can't be relied upon, but it is quite self explainatory so it might not be necessary. I'm leaning towards it being unncessary with moast FLs with Template:Increase not explaining it and the others just including it in a longer explanation of notation. I've removed the key for now but am quite uncertain about that change. The table approach looks better then the status quo in my opinion. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The label for "Congo, Democratic Republic of the" should be fixed (without messing up the sorting). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, same for "Congo, Republic of the". --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Regions and groups" section, choosing the years 1990, 2000, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 seems a bit arbitrary (where's 2016?) and introduces recentism concerns. I don't think we should feel pressure to fill up the entire width of the page just since it's available (on desktop); I would suggest taking out 2014, 2017, and 2018. If you really want to fill up the page, we could add 1995 and 2005 if they're available to create 5-year increments. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the ones that were recalculated in the latest report. (Due to improved data and methodology updates, HDI values are not comparable across human development reports; instead, each report recalculates the HDI for some previous years.) I guess 2014 could be removed though to make it a small amount nicer. I feel like all the others are worth keeping though (could be convinced otherwise about 2017 though). --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My view would be that the HDI report is allowed to be recentist in a way that we are not. But balancing recentism and updatedness is a tricky thing, so I'll defer to whatever your preference is. Given that everything will need to be recalculated each year, the WP:ENDURE considerations are different than most annual tables, but you might want to put in a hidden comment about how to select the years to include. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the see also section, the sublists by region have some inconsistent title structures ("countries" vs. "sovereign states", "countries in X" vs. "X countries"). If we wanted to be comprehensive about it, we could move them so they're aligned, but that's obviously beyond the scope of this FLC; a simpler solution would be to just pipe the links. Or maybe there's some reason the titles are different that hasn't occurred to me. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've piped the links to just the region for now. Can't see a reason for the current names either, will probably start a RM shortly. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the see also section, per MOS:ACROTITLE, we should decide whether or not we want to abbreviate HDI in page titles and be consistent about it. My guess would be that we probably shouldn't abbreviate in the actual titles. But abbreviating everything in the see also section here via pipes might actually help make it easier to read, and hopefully readers know what HDI means by the time they make it to that section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Opend RMs on those two but kept the abbreviation in the see also section. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for the comments! Maybe this can actually get promoted soon! --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb I've now added a bit more on recpetion and I believe that would be all of your comments addressed. While the reception and limitations sections cover similar ground I believe it useful to clearly show both the UNDPs and others perspective here. --Trialpears (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Avakov, Aleksandr Vladimirovich (2012). Quality of Life, Balance of Powers, and Nuclear Weapons (2012): A Statistical Yearbook for Statesmen and Citizens. Algora Publishing. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-87586-892-9.
  • Support, my concerns are sufficiently addressed. Nice work! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • you have New York: for one ref but not the others—should be one way or the other
  • I would include the date for ref 10
Reliability
  • No issues here
Verifiability
  • You might want to put a super brief instruction in ref 8 indicating that the FAQ in question is under the "Human Development Index (HDI)" header
  • recommend archiving links Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24 Great! I've removed New York as I don't see a value in including it, but could do it the other way if so desired. The date's been added for ref 10 and the title for the FAQ is now "Frequently Asked Questions | Human Development Index (HDI) | Why does the HDI not include dimensions of participation, gender and equality?". I also just added a bit more on criticism of the HDI per Sdkb above which added a few refs. --Trialpears (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot the link archiving but I have now run IABot on the page and all links have archives. --Trialpears (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all of this, pass for source review. It's funny, I was just talking with some friends last night about the recent coup in Mali and we pulled up your wonderful list to see where it was on the ranking. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this has gathered significant support and passed source review with no more actionable comments I feel like this probably has consensus for promotion. It would be kind of fun having it promoted before it closes, but no biggie. =) --Trialpears (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index/archive3&oldid=1027956091"