Talk:New 'failed states index' report published
Review of revision 1048814 [Passed][edit]
 |
Revision 1048814 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: And same to you, Tempo. :) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1048814 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: And same to you, Tempo. :) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Last sentence?[edit]
What was the motivation to list the rankings of the US, the UK and Australia? We can't list all the English speaking countries where the Wikinews audience might reside. The US is of possible interest as it reflects the origin of the report. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I recall, only one of the three (initially used) sources mentioned any middle-of-the-road rankings — an India-based source, that apparently figured the two middle-of-the-road rankings of international interest were US and UK. (They also separately listed India, not international for them.) Including the UK would therefore appear to be ultimately based on the significance attached to the UK by a news source in India.
- I'm in favor of removing the UK, and also agree with the reason you suggest for mentioning the US. --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A link to the Index itself?[edit]
Perhaps it would be useful to add a link to the Failed States Index website? Like this page.
- That link, and one to the Fund for Peace, are at the bottom of the article, marked "External links" --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)