Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Falkland Islands/archive1

• History: This reads more like a summary of the territorial disputes that have dogged the Falklands for centuries. Obviously that’s important, but I think the section is too heavily weighted to that element now. For instance, there’s room to expand the pre-European history (currently one sentence). There’s no mention of the Ross Expedition, or the reason for the Falkland’s importance as a port, its coaling station or the famous ships recovered from the harbour.
• “resulted in a British victory over imperial Germany” and “resulted in the Royal Navy's victory over the Kriegsmarine.” Needs rewording; these battles did not result in victory over the entirety of Imperial Germany or the Kreigsmarine.
• Come to think of it, why is the River Plate mentioned as being ‘near’ the archipelago? The battle took place over 1,000 miles away from the islands. This needs clarifying and the exact contribution of the islands to the battle explained (ie. the repairs to Exeter).
• Geography: Quite short, is there room for expansion. Also, why are the lat and long approximate?
• Climate: Even shorter. Three sentences doesn’t seem much for an FA – could it not have its own section, some more averages and extremes, and maybe even a climate graph that I see on other articles?
• Tourism: Currently only dealt with in one word (repeated), but not clarified in any way; could this not be expanded (ie. to clarify the island’s role in cruise liner tours)?

Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, thank you very much for the comments.

My only major disagreement is with the history suggestion. The reason the territorial dispute is so prominent in the history of the islands is because that is, truly, the most remarkable aspect of its history. This and other sections are deliberately short per WP:SUMMARY. The islands have no significant "pre-European history". The Ross Sea party featured article only mentions the Falklands once. Ships recovered from the harbor falls more on the realm of nautical archaeology, but not a summary history of the state. Nonetheless, the fifth paragraph could certainly be improved in order to show the islands' significance as a port.

I can certainly address most of the other suggestions, but I'd like to point out once more that sections and information are summarized per WP:SUMMARY. In other words, I will not include climate charts or expand sections just to make the article bigger. I believe in the policy's intent that short, summarized reference articles are more likely to be read than long ones; readers looking for specific or specialized content can then follow the wikilinks into articles that are focused on their topic of interest (such as Climate of the Falkland Islands).

There appears to be two trends in the country article FACs, one that follows a long model (such as Germany) and another that follows WP:SUMMARY (such as Peru). Arguably, both states have long histories that can fill up a myriad pages of information, but I find the article on Peru to be far more readable than Germany.

I hope my positions makes sense. I mean absolutely no disrespect and look forward to your review and further suggestions.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently reading up on Falklands tourism, so I may take some time to respond (perhaps a day). Nonetheless, I may add information about recovered ships in the tourism part. "Wreck diving" also seems to have a role in this story. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to add to the article in order to make it longer. However, I am looking for balance, and I think it's a bit lacking in this article. I appreciate you've gone for a shorter 'summary' style article, but the problem I see is that the sovereignty dispute content looks more like it's come from a long model. I realise that in most sources, the sovereignty is the main focus of attention, but I don't think that should mean this article places excessive weight on it, whilst leaving other sections under-represented. I'm afraid I can't support the article with its current weighting.

History section:

• I think more than half a sentence could be allocated to Pre European history; it gets its own section in the history article after all.

• The section in the history article is filled with contradictory information. There simply is no significant pre-European history in the Falklands.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there's no recorded history. I'm not asking for much, just a better presentation of the several tens of thousands of years before Europeans arrived. If there is no evidence of significant history or archaeology, that can be better stated than a vague possibility of previous settlement which appears to be used purely to introduce the second half of that sentence (ie that the islands were uninhabited in the 16th century). Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's impossible to do a presentation of "tens of thousands of years" about a pile of rocks in the ocean. The only kind of notable archaeology in the Falklands is nautical; everything else is vague. It is what it is. The archipelago's history, as far as world history is concerned, begins in the 16th century.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 read almost like a list of claims, and the prose is a bit wanting. This could easily be fleshed out with some more details to make it more of a social history. For instance, why did France surrender its claim in 1776 (and the same with the Spanish and British departures)? There's little sense of explanation behind the actual events, which contributes to the sense that it is a just history of disputes.

• I added a paragraph about the Spanish and British settlements, and their reasons for departing the archipelago. Is this along the lines of what you have in mind?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "the island's status was again undisputed" actually mean? The context isn't that clear in the preceding paragraph.

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WCM's addition definitely improves matters, but it needs a copyedit and referencing.

• I'm not sure what has happened to WCM, but I improved the section and took out unnecessary details.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry been on holiday, I'm also travelling a lot with work. WCM_email 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• General prose: A lot of small sentences could be merged to improve the readability (ie. In 1990, the UK and Argentina "normalised" diplomatic relations. In 1998, Argentine president Carlos Menem, in a letter to Falklanders, "called for reconciliation 'to heal old wounds'").

• Considering I am the primary author of the text, I cannot find those "small sentences" you point out. I will, however, address this one you point out. If there are any others, please do feel free to edit them as you see fit.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After the First and Second World War paragraph, the history returns almost exclusively to sovereignty issues. What about the evolution of the settlements? When was Stanley proclaimed the capital for instance? When was the airfield built? Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed. Stanley was capital since 1845. Airfield was built in 1972. The sovereignty dispute takes precedence at this point in all sources.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1840 the Falklands became a Crown colony, and a governor and Scots subsequently established an official pastoral settlement." Could you clarify the Scots bit? At first I thought i was an individual's name, but I presume it's Scottish settlers. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly the most notable event in the island's history (the war) is dealt with in one sentence. I think this requires a touch more expansion. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What else is relevant to add about it? The war only lasted about a couple of months. I find no reason to make two months worth of history into anything longer than sentence.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But this is in stark contrast to your comments about reflecting the literature on the topic. I can't believe that the most notable event in the island's history is not the most notable in sources on the Falklands. The casualty figures, the effect on the Argentine government and the fact the war left 20,000 landmines on the island strike me as the sort of details worthy of inclusion. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Those points you mention are the consequences of the war, but not the war itself. The landmines and reaction of the Argentine government (as it concerns the Falklands) can be included. Casualty figures are best suited for war articles. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty Dispute

• Here things tend to re-tread the content of the history section, but with some new facts. Despite the two sentences I've given above about 're-healing', we now find out that in fact, in 1994, "Argentina promulgated a new constitution claiming the Falkland Islands". As well as clarifying what this actually means, I really would be inclined to make the history section more social, and put anything to do with claims and sovereignty in this section.

• You don't seem to notice that the "re-healing" statement happened four years after the 1994 event. I am currently moving (and removing) things around both of these areas. The "history" section of the article is not going to focus on "social history". Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That was my point; there were two chronologies of the same subject in two sections, each containing different information. The original two sentences in the history section might have suggested a warming of relationships, but then the reader finds out later that there was a significant cooling in between those two dates. It's much better to have one chronology of these disputes. Regardless of where the dispute chronology goes, there will need to be some social history in the history section though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the balance has been lost in summarising too much. I've opened up a section for discussion on the talk page. WCM_email 10:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• With reference to balance again, why does a journalist's comment matter in a summary style article? Surely the final sentence in this paragraph demonstrates the islander's opinions clearly enough by itself. This is one of the details that I think makes the sovereignty content too long relative to the rest of the article.

• Addressed. Section is now only two paragraphs, with only essential material.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

• Balance again. Why two paragraphs for geography but only three sentences for climate? As I said, I don't want you to expand it just to make the article longer, but we get so much information on the geography and little on the weather. This sense of imbalance is further evidenced in the fact that we get two sentences on the resident's cake, tea and chatting habits in the culture section.

• The balance argument does not really apply here, specially a comparison between culture and climate. Regardless, I added some information and made climate its own paragraph.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "East Falkland houses Stanley (the capital and largest city)". Is Stanley a city? This sentence also implies that there are other cities on the Falklands. Some consistency is also required; Stanley is referred to as Port Stanley in other sections. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the cited source, Stanley is the capital and largest city. There's a whole list of other locations in the islands that can be found at List of settlements in the Falkland Islands. "Port Stanley" is another common name for Stanley (there is nothing wrong or confusing about using it). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's cited as a city that's fine, but I think you've misunderstood my other points. Surely there aren't any other cities on the Falklands, but by saying that Stanley is the largest city, it implies there are other, smaller ones. I didn't say that Port Stanley was confusing or wrong, but I expect consistency in an FA (I would not expect to find Beijing and Peking used interchangeably in a China article for instance). Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not much I can do about it; I can't find a source that examines cities in the Falkland Islands. Maybe the reason is that there are no true cities, but I can't guess. All I can affirm is that the cited source specifically states that Stanley is the "capital and largest city" in the Falklands. Also, the naming between "Port Stanley" and "Stanley" is not as disparate as "Beijing" and "Peking". I could understand your second point if I was using the name "Puerto Argentino" to refer to Stanley, but that's not the case.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but there really is plenty you can do about it. Let's be honest - there are no other cities on the Falklands (I'm not convinced by Stanley, but I'll let it slide as it's the capital). So don't include a sentence that implies otherwise. We aren't require to slavishly follow sources, especially when they're clearly incorrect on the matter. Regarding Port Stanley, once again this is an FAC; please pick one option and be consistent per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Geographical_items. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't conduct original research. At no point does the article indicate that there are other cities in the Falklands. The sentence that states Stanley is "the capital and largest city" does not imply anything beyond what it states (it neither affirms nor denies the existence of other cities in the archipelago). Please read some of the literature ([1]). Some sources alternatively refer to it as the "primate city". I understand that this is an FA review, but neither of us can create information from our own personal conclusions. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It does imply there are other cities, by virtue of the use of a superlative that compares one thing with another (in this case cities). To use a different example, we shouldn't say "the sun is the largest star in our solar system", because we cannot compare it with another star in the solar system - there isn't one. If you won't change it, then I feel obliged to ask for reliable sources (not the ones you've linked to) stating that there are other cities. At the moment, the grammar is wrong. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The question you ask of me would be the same as me asking you to provide a source that backs up your position. Neither case can be done because nobody has written anything about it. Maybe it's because there are no cities in the Falklands, or maybe it's because nobody cares. All I know is that the sources call Stanley "the largest city". Regardless, I changed the "largest city" to "only city". Is this good?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would "capital and largest settlement" work better? This is pretty unarguable (there are definitely other settlements and they're definitely smaller). It's worth noting that Stanley, Falkland Islands never uses the word "city", preferring "town". Andrew Gray (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - either one of these changes is fine. Sorry to have to have gone on about this, but the sentence was just wrong, grammatically and factually, as it was before. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow as I work my way down. Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

• Perhaps its worth a note to explain the preponderance of the term 'Falklands' as a name, given that it's an unusual pluralisation of the name and is widely used in the article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. I added a note of it into the text. I don't consider it needs a reference since it is pretty much common knowledge.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranger Steve: WCM and I have addressed everything that we could from your recommendations. The only major point we have not managed to address is the suggestion to expand the pre-history of the archipelago, but this is only because archaeological research has yet to produce more conclusive information on the topic. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, we hope that future editors will be able to expand on this part of the article. We also hope that you find the article's current state as acceptable, and would appreciate to know your position (support or oppose) assuming there is nothing else left to address. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Falklands enjoy internal self-governance" - 'enjoy' is a bit odd in this context

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "an estimated 2,932 in 2012" - the lead should note that this excluded the large number of British military personnel in the islands. Given that its based on census data 'estimated' is also not really appropriate: this is a pretty firm figure, and the source does not call it an estimate

• Addressed. Footnote added.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the UN actually call the islands "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"? The source stresses that this is a listing of names used to help with statistical processing and that they do not have any official status.

• Addressed (by Nick's own edit).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No it isn't, or I wouldn't have raised this. If the name is only used by UN statistical staff for processing purposes (as the source provided states) it's not of any real significance and should be omitted from the article. The question is if the UN uses it as its default designation for the islands. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed. Interestingly, it was the Tanzanian representative who suggested the nomenclature. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The settlements' mutual awareness is a subject of debate." - what's meant by this? (were the settlers not aware of the other settlement? - if so, I'd suggest using clearer language)

• Addressed. Sentence reworded.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "a pastoral settlement was established by Scotsmen and a governor" - was this an official colonial settlement? (also, 'Scotsmen' is sexist unless this was really a male-only settlement)

• Addressed. Added "official" prior to pastoral and removed "men" from "Scotsmen" (which is what the source used).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the first half of the 20th century, the Falklands played a prominent role during the two world wars as a military base aiding control of the South Atlantic" - no they didn't. In both world wars the islands were a base of middling importance during the first months of the war, and a total backwater thereafter. No forces of any importance were based in the islands, and Simonstown in South Africa was the main British base in the South Atlantic

• Addressed WCM_email 13:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• " another naval encounter near the archipelago" - that battle was fought off Argentina and Brazil, and nowhere near the Falklands

• Addressed WCM_email 13:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• " resulted in the Royal Navy's victory over the Kriegsmarine" - overstatement. A force of British ships batted a single German heavy cruiser which then scuttled herself.

• Addressed WCM_email 13:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to talk about World War II, a more important development was the dispatch of a battalion of British troops to protect the islands from a potential Japanese invasion(!), and - more sensibly - discourage the Argentines from attempting an invasion while British forces were tied down against Germany and Japan

• Addressed WCM_email 13:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina reached no meaningful conclusion" - something of an oversimplification given that the British government strongly indicated that it would be willing to eventually hand the islands over to Argentina at one point.

• Addressed WCM_email 13:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "After the war the United Kingdom expanded its military presence on the islands, building RAF Mount Pleasant and increasing the size of its garrison,[52] and the UK and Argentina "normalised" diplomatic relations in 1990." - the last part of this sentence is on a different topic from the remainder

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the role of the appointed Chief Executive of the islands? (it seems unusual to have a non-democratically elected person with a prominent role in actually running a democratic state)

• There is nothing unusual about the Chief Executive's role. Prof. Vincenzo Sainato writes: "The chief executive and six-member executie council are responsible for the daily management and delivery of government services on the Islands." In other words, the Chief Executive is the head of government. This is what is already stated, and there really is nothing else to add about it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't think of another democratic state where the head of government is appointed rather than elected, so it seems appropriate to expand upon this a little. Is this done because the islands are too small to sustain or require a full-time elected head of government? (the mayors of similarly-sized and populated local government areas in Australia are usually work in the role on a part time basis, with the full-time CEO of the council being responsible for the day to day running of the local government's functions). Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this is something different (from "what is the role?" to "why is this the case?"). The request is very interesting, but seems excessive for the article. Looking at the lengthy Germany featured article, which presents the head of government (Chancellor) as also appointed rather than elected, I do not find any explanation as to why this is the case (or why power is in the hands of the "third-highest official"). Coming from Peru, all of these different systems are interesting (the President in my country is the head of state & government, as well as the highest elected official). The literature on the topic, for the Falklands, also does not bother to explain why the Chief Executive has this role. These roles are all presented as facts; it's a standard.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure that the chief executive is actually the head of government? The constitution (which is the referenced source) actually says that the chief executive is the head of the islands' public service, which is a different thing altogether (eg, he's the head of the civil service, but doesn't necessarily have authority over the elected MLAs as the term 'head of government' implies). The constituion also says that the CE doesn't have the right to vote in meetings of the executive council (only the elected MLAs have this right). This news story says that the current chief executive was selected through an interview process conducted by MLAs and was appointed by the governor on "advice" from the executive council, which is also a rather different concept from only the governor making the appointment as the article says (the convention in British-style governments is that the appointed governors always follows "advice" from the elected government, with their role being to rubber stamp this and provide a fall back to resolve constitutional and political crises). Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good question. I reached the conclusion based on Prof. Sainato's explanation, but a closer inspection does indicate matters to be a tad more complex. According to Prof. Robert Buckman, in his book Latin America 2012 (p. 394), the Falklands has two heads of government, the governor and the chief executive. I'm going to have the article reflect what Buckman directly points out. Thanks for the catch.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• " has led authorities to contain, remove or exterminate invasive species" - should this be 'attempt to contain...' given that such efforts are very difficult?

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't note the significant drop in the islands population which took place during the 20th century (from about 3000 to 2000 people, from memory), and the associated economic decline. This is hinted at in the 'Demographics' section, but never explicitly stated.

• Addressed. @Nick-D: Is this the last point, or are there further matters to address?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Watch for over-linking (eg, Camp is linked several times)

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There should be an internet link to the CIA World Factbook

• It's already in the reference citations. Is another link necessary?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the claim that "Agriculture (primarily sheep farming and fishing) accounts for 95 percent of the Falkland Islands' gross domestic product" accurate? The CIA World Fact Book contains this statistic, but also states that "The economy was formerly based on agriculture, mainly sheep farming but fishing and tourism currently comprise the bulk of economic activity". The Census results state that only 11% of islanders work in agriculture, and the Falklands Islands Government website says that tourism isn't much smaller than agriculture [2] (though the wording is unclear)

• I can only work with the sources available. The CIA World Factbook estimate may be outdated since it was last calculated in 1996. The website you link to does, however, provide a statistic on the fishing industry. I'll work with both sources to improve the picture on the economy.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is obviously wrong, not least as the statistic is contradicted by the commentary which accompanies it. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The CIA include fishing and sheep farming into "agriculture". Rather than obvious error or contradiction, the CIA are referring to the Primary sector of the economy, which some economists simply label "agriculture". I'll clarify the text.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is simply no way that the 95% figure is accurate, especially given that the Falklands Government says that the size of the tourism industry (which falls under the services sector) is almost as large as the agriculture industry. The Falkland Islands Economic Development Strategy (available via [3]) has various figures which look useful - the table at the end states that agriculture and fisheries accounted for 62% of gross value added in 2009. It would be also worth digging around UK government websites to see if they have more recent/better figures. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed (I hope). I included information from a 2014 book which had a whole chapter devoted to the Falkland Islands economy. It just came out last month! Very lucky find.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure that that book is a reliable source? It appears to have been published by a self-publishing outfit, and Global Investment and Business Center doesn't appear to have an online presence. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked the publisher ([4]), and found no reason to doubt the quality of the source. The company specializes in publishing country business guides. The data being cited is also quite accurate, based on what we had been discussing here. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please explain how you reached that conclusion? The website doesn't seem to provide any details on the firm's authors/researchers or other credentials, which is highly unusual for this kind of business. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I explained my conclusion in the last two sentences of my previous statement. Their Amazon.com listing is also indicative of their area of expertise ([5]). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 10:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That company looks anything but reliable: it names no authors for its works, which is hugely unusual for this kind of business, and appears to operate on a printing on demand model. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright Nick, I will find another (more reliable) source for it. Would addressing this issue be the last suggestion, or are there others?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still to look through the diffs to double check that my comments have been addressed, and have raised a point above Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick, I addressed this economics part. I used the data from the FI government website. I also used The Guardian's report to include a part on the employment.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Development projects in education and sports have been funded by the Falklands government, without aid from the United Kingdom" - this seems misleading. The UK government has invested heavily in the islands' economy since 1982 (with the military presence being a major source of economic support, even if formal development assistance is no longer being provided), and it's not clear to me how 'sports' will develop the islands' economy.

• Sports help develop the human capital of the national economy. I don't find the text misleading. By explicitly indicating that education and sports are funded by the Falklands government, the sentence implicitly points out that other projects are not (and other parts of the article mention that the UK invested heavily in the islands).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "excluding British Ministry of Defence personnel and families based at RAF Mount Pleasant" - this wording is a little bit unclear: the census states that it does not include "military personnel serving in the Falkland Islands or their dependents", and not just those at Mount Pleasant (this is the main British base, but there's also a network of radar stations and a military port). It would be good to note how many service personnel and dependants are in the islands given that they make up a large chunk of the total population (according to The Guardian, there were 1,300 uniformed personnel and 50 civilians in 2013: [6])

• Addressed. The Guardian's information is from a 2012 report sent to the UK Parliament.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Wagstaff a reliable source? Tourist guides are generally not considered great resources.

• Yes, but only for his area of expertise (culture). Please see the WP:RSN's take on it (here and here).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest adding the British official history of the Falklands War to the 'further reading' section: as far as I'm aware, this is the major recent study of the history of the islands (it covers the period from the 1600s until the mid 1980s).

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ranger Steve's suggestion that the article include more coverage of the tourism industry (including the unique challenges posed by the very limited air routes into the islands) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead currently states that the Falklands War was "undeclared". I've tried to fix this, but am being reverted. An 'undeclared' war is usually a covert war of some kind, or a war fought through proxies. This didn't apply to the high intensity conflict in 1982, especially as both sides recognised the other as formal belligerents for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions and the like and the British declared a formal blockade of the islands (an Argentinian and a British hospital ship actually operated in close proximity off the Falklands for much of the conflict as the British recognised the Argentines right to deploy such a vessel, and vice-versa). Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed, I think. Consensus was favorable to the removal of "undeclared".--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address and/or respond each of your points as I go through them. I will save my answers in this page every so often, but this does not mean I am ignoring the other suggestions (I may need to take breaks here and there).

Responses

• Addressed. "Enjoy" changed to "have".
• Addressed. Footnote added. The word "estimated" is accurate. Having taken three advanced (boring & terrifying) statistics courses, I assure you that all statistical data at the macro level is an estimate.

• I'm actually a qualified demographer :) It's unusual to refer to Census population results as an 'estimate' as they have something close to a 100% response rate and the element of them which are estimated due to non-response is normally pretty minor (though you are, of course, right in pointing out that there are inaccuracies in Census data - the level of education people claim to have is often entirely wrong, for instance): the results are usually presented as 'X people were in the country at the time of the census'. In a small society like the Falklands where they knew exactly how many citizens were out of the country at the time of the Census the figure should be very reliable - the census results summary actually notes that the statistician rang up households who appeared to have filled in their form incorrectly to double check the details with them! Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's neat. I'm still a little doubtful about the total accuracy of the census, but it's a minor matter that does no merit great debate. I trust your professional status, so I will edit as you suggest. Addressed. [:)]--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the UN officially calls the islands "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". Their disclaimer at the bottom of the source is specifically meant to be an apology (neutrality declaration) in case the UN naming policy offends anyone.

• OK, but that needs to be supported by a reliable source which says that Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edited version of the text in question is good.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's two perspectives. One is that both settlements knew about each other, which favors the Spanish/Argentine position, and the other is that the British settlement had no idea the French had settled the islands, which favors the UK's position. I'll try to fix the wording.

I'll continue with this in a little bit.

Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be easiest if you could respond to my comments immediately below each one so that I (and others) can easily track the responses. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, WCM added material into the history section. I think we have addressed everything you recommended. What do you think, yay or nay for FA support? Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays. From a quick check of the overall diffs my above comments are addressed, but I have some new ones on the new material:

• I'm a bit sceptical about whether all the notes at the end of the article are needed. Notes B, G, L don't seem necessary, and I'd suggest reviewing the others.

• I can remove L. However, B and G have relevance in the sovereignty dispute. I plan on copy-editing the Shackleton note.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Thereafter, the archipelago became a harbour for fishing ships; " - provided harbours perhaps? (harbours aren't islands ;) )

• Right. Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• U.K. or UK? Both appear and consistency is needed (I'd suggest UK, which dominates in the article, but both are basically correct)

• Addressed. "UK" is made standard.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• " international air travel was made possible via RAF Mount Pleasant" - international flights to Argentina took place through Port Stanley Airport before the war (a persistent concern of the pre-war military forces in the Falklands was that the Argentines could invade the island by packing a scheduled flight with troops!)

• Addressed. Text clarified.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that "RAF Mount Pleasant was improved to allow international air travel outside of Stanley" is correct. My understanding is that RAF Mount Pleasant was built specifically to be able to take very large intercontinental aircraft to allow the British to fly transports in, as well as to accommodate high performance fighter aircraft, and it replaced Stanley as the island's international airport. The opening of this facility permitted intercontinental flights for the first time (I'm not sure if Stanley Airport could accommodate flights from anywhere other than Argentina given that large jet aircraft couldn't safely land there). Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick, Stanley was built for short haul flights, the biggest it could handle safely was the Fokker F28 of LADE. They flew in 737 during the war but it was a tadge risky as the runway really isn't long enough for a jet that big. WCM_email 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WCM has addressed this in the text.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that the chief executive is appointed by the governor doesn't seem correct: he or she appears to be appointed by the governor on the advice of MLAs, which is entirely different to the governor appointing them themselves (eg, as its the MLAs who make the decision which the governor then rubber stamps).

Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What role does the British minister with responsibility for the islands play? Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the same as another question asked earlier. As in the other case, I cannot find a source that explains what the minister does; all that is known is that the position and the person in charge exist. None of the other featured articles explain the role of their officials.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At the present the article says that the islands are self governing except in relation to foreign affairs and defence, so identifying a British minister with responsibility for them seems odd. Judging from the minister's official website [7] it appears that he's responsible for administering British foreign policy regarding the Falklands. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes thats correct, the Minister of State is responsible for administering foreign policy. This includes nominating the Governor by the way. WCM_email 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The only substantive issue I see is with the history section, which appears completely about the Islands' territorial / political status; there is nothing about its economic history, for example; there is also some overlap between the history section and the subsequenty "sovereignty dispute" subsection.
• There look to me to be too many external links in the end section. We don't need the World Factbook linked there - if it isn't being used as a source (and therefore in the referecnes), well, Wikipedia is a world factbook; we don't need links to tourism sites; certainly not to two of them, nor a link to a site that aggregates links (DMOZ). Check WP:ELNO and see if there are any others that might be trimmed.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonstone, thank you so much for the praise and suggested improvements.

In response to the first comment about the history section, which was also pointed out by Ranger Steve, all I can respond is that this section reflects the literature on the topic. All of the history works I have read about the Falklands focus on its political status. For simplicity, this can be seen not only in Wikipedia's own History of the Falkland Islands article, but even in Encyclopaedia Britannica's own history section for the Falkland Islands (please see [8]).

I agree with both you and Steve that this is an issue, because history is more than just the territorial/political aspect of a state; however, I can only work with the sources I have available, and I don't consider that this should be a reason for this article to not be promoted.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree withe the principle - that the coverage shoudl reflect the sources - but not its implementation here. I just had a quick glance at History of the Falkland Islands, and there is some economic / development history there that does not appear to be captured in the history section of this summary article. I don't doubt that the territorial aspect is the dominant one, but it appears to be covered exclusively. There is stuff in the other article on nineteenth century development of agriculture etc, including at least one reference not used in the main article that may cover this (Wigglesworth), as well as some here (which I assume is a reliable source - happy to be corrected). It doesn't need a huge amount of work, but it does need something. The overlap I mentioned can be tweaked as well. I reiterate that the article is generally very good! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source "Falklands.info" is not reliable (no citations are found to where they obtained their narrative), and any mention to it was removed during the GA process some months ago. A brief economic history is presented in the "economics" section of the article. I don't have access to the Wigglesworth source. I will do a backwards-search to find a reliable source that confirms the information on agriculture in the history of the Falklands article, but I can't promise anything as all the sources I have read up to now had no mention of this information.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like weecurrymonster has added the sort of substantive text i was hoping for. Their edit summary says cites are coming later. As long as they do, this is likely to address the bulk of the issue.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hamiltonstone. I also plan to include information on the population decline that Nick mentioned in his review.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hamiltonstone, I consider to have addressed all of the points you suggested. What do you say, pass or nay? Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It is better now.

• There is still a residual issue about overlap between the history, and the subsection on the sovereignty dispute later on. Roughly speaking, it seems to me the following lines should become part of the history section, and the remainder - which is concentrated purely on current governance situation - stay where it is. Move these:

• "In 1965, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2065, calling for both states to conduct bilateral negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement of the dispute.[52] Diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina, severed at the outbreak of the Falklands War in 1982, were re-established in 1990.[81]"

• There is a direct quote in the sentence that ends with footnote K - i think that needs an inline cite separate from the footnote K.

That's about it. I'm a support once these are sorted.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! Done. Thanks Hamiltonstone.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Operation Tabarin was the 1944 expedition to parts of Antarctica via the Falklands (then seen as the Falklands Islands Dependencies); the 1942 deployment of a garrison battalion was an entirely unconnected operation and Tabarin itself didn't begin being planned until mid-1943.

• Addressed. Thanks for the fix.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It would probably be worth mentioning the Falkland Islands Dependencies in the early twentieth-century context; this covered a wide range of territory from South Georgia down to the northern Antarctic Peninsula, and during the early part of the century the whaling/sealing here was a major economic activity linked to the Falklands and (AIUI) administered out of Stanley. Perhaps a short paragraph on the bits of 20th-century history which weren't related to sovereignty or the wars, touching on economic development?

• Addressed. I included only information that was relevant to the Falkland Islands.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Government - probably worth mentioning the recent move to paid MLAs rather than part-time, which is quite a significant shift.

• Andrew, addressed. Is this the last suggestion?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Under Sovereignty, "The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands and its dependencies" - the FI Dependencies no longer exist as such (they're now South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) and probably this needs a little rewording to avoid the current tense.

• Addressed.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article probably needs to explain the concept of "Camp". It's referred to a couple of times (three assembly members, migration, etc) but the reader would probably assume it's another town. Perhaps a line in geography?

• Addressed. Very good catch!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, let me know if you need any lookups from the Falkland Islands Journal - I have a full run in the library. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thanks for the review and offer. Please, if you have some time, can you help me find if the Falklands have their borders delimited with Argentina, or (in case not) how exactly its maritime borders are set? Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to avoid touching on political issues here. :-) Do these maps help? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That serves the purpose! Thanks Andrew.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Reading into the history of the "special area" for drilling in 1995 would probably help give more detail - this sits on what looks like the de-facto boundary, and presumably the negotiations touched on the actual status of this line. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray: All suggestions were addressed. Thank you very much for the improvements! What do you think, support yay or nay?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the poke. I'll have a read over it with fresh eyes tomorrow and let you know what I think. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]