Wikipedia:Peer review/List of UN peacekeeping missions/archive1
List of UN peacekeeping missions[edit]
I guess I'm planning on submitting this for FLC eventually, and would like any feedback. It was created all of 3 days ago. I'd like any ideas on the formatting (which was a hassle, as I am somewhat technically challenged), and any other areas, (like the lead could probably use a look-over). If you see those two blank "conflict" spaces, it's because I can't figure out what goes there, and help is appreciated. Also note, I still need to sort out that operation-name-linking mess, as some of the articles are at the full name, while many are at the acronym (so many of those red links'll go away). Thoughts? --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 08:10 (UTC)
- Can't really help you on the technical stuff, but I'd like to shower you with praise for a moment :). I love the way this page looks - the colour of the tables, the brilliant touch of adding flags, the outrageous amount of simple but effective detail! Once the tech problems are sorted, and they will be soon enough, I'll be all too happy to support this for FL. Well done. Harro5 July 6, 2005 08:21 (UTC)
- This list looks great, great work on the formatting. One things is that it is unusual to have a separate column for flags, most lists just add the flag to the location column (see any of the Olympics pages or List of African countries by GDP for examples). I prefer this system as giving them their own column makes it seem like flags are an important facet of the mission, rather than the mainly decorative element that they are. Another thing I would be interested in seeing is which countries sent troops to each mission, but adding this might be impractical. Also isn't the second half of this page identical to List of countries where UN peacekeepers are currently deployed, perhaps the two pages should be merged. - SimonP July 6, 2005 16:20 (UTC)
- There is a actually is a difference (at least to me). This one is a list of missions, chronologically, so with the date and mission coming first. The other is a list of countries by mission, and therefore is ordered alphabetically, and with country name first. I agree with your idea on the flags,
but the problem is that for many there are multiple flags to display for only one location (like Central America, Prevlaka, Kosovo, Golan Heights, etc.). Do you know how I would implement that?Thanks for your help with the conflicts, too. --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 19:22 (UTC)- Okay, I think I just solved the flag issue. I got rid of the "flag" heading, and kept the flag column, but basically embedded within the "location" column, by having the "location" column span two columns. (I don't really know if that explained it well, but take a look). --Dmcdevit July 7, 2005 04:07 (UTC)
- There is a actually is a difference (at least to me). This one is a list of missions, chronologically, so with the date and mission coming first. The other is a list of countries by mission, and therefore is ordered alphabetically, and with country name first. I agree with your idea on the flags,
- This list looks great, great work on the formatting. One things is that it is unusual to have a separate column for flags, most lists just add the flag to the location column (see any of the Olympics pages or List of African countries by GDP for examples). I prefer this system as giving them their own column makes it seem like flags are an important facet of the mission, rather than the mainly decorative element that they are. Another thing I would be interested in seeing is which countries sent troops to each mission, but adding this might be impractical. Also isn't the second half of this page identical to List of countries where UN peacekeepers are currently deployed, perhaps the two pages should be merged. - SimonP July 6, 2005 16:20 (UTC)
Is it possible to employ the {{ref}} and {{note}} system to the two numbered points? If so, please do this. Also, I'm not sure if you need the "as of July 05" thing in the lead. Wikipedia pages get updated on major events as soon as they happen, and it doesn't really need to be said. It would just be one thing you'd have to update the wording of monthly. That's all at the moment. Harro5 July 8, 2005 02:03 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions (and praise)! I got rid of the "as of July," I see your point, it doesn't add anything. And I've just spent half an hour teaching myself to do those notes. There's no good tutorial anywhere! They all assume you basically know what you're doing but just need style help. But after a lot of testing (you can't use preview when testing links, since it just takes you to the saved version without the links added yet) I think I finally got it to work, and they're a nice touch. :) How do you like it? --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 06:57 (UTC)
- Hahaha...a gallant effort by no stretch of the imagination. Anyway, they're there now, and you've now learnt a very tricky piece of Wikipedia technology. Think of it as sort of an initiation. Anyway, they add another nice touch. I think that's my advice done, but I'll keep an eye on the peer review and see what happens. Harro5 July 8, 2005 08:16 (UTC)
- Whats the reason for having a link to the website within the table as well as in a list at the bottom of the page, unless I'm missing something the list seems kind of redundant?--nixie 8 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
- It's just for ease of use really. Navigationally, it's nice to have them right there for more info as you're looking up something. But also, there should be the rferences section for all of them in a central location. I don't think it's a big deal, but we could get rid of them (although it would mean a lot of tedious table-work). --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 23:28 (UTC)
- I think the links at the bottom of the page should go. They create a huge eyesore at the bottom of the page and the links in the tables seem just fine as the operation name is given already. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Have done, thanks for the input :) --Dmcdevit 01:17, 11 July, 2005 (UTC)
- I think the links at the bottom of the page should go. They create a huge eyesore at the bottom of the page and the links in the tables seem just fine as the operation name is given already. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- It's just for ease of use really. Navigationally, it's nice to have them right there for more info as you're looking up something. But also, there should be the rferences section for all of them in a central location. I don't think it's a big deal, but we could get rid of them (although it would mean a lot of tedious table-work). --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 23:28 (UTC)