I dont have time for an in depth review, but the statement "More countries are likely to recognise Kosovo in the coming months" needs a direct reference, or needs rewording because this sounds exactly like someones opinion and crystal-balling. Great list though and Im sure it will garner enough support. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed. Gary King (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Not keen on the bullet points in the Recognition column, only vaguely useful twice. I'd write it out as prose.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also prefer to see the columns of each table the same width.
    • They are (in my browser) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • IE7 strikes again... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done Yep, they are for me as well. Use Firefox for any design issues that look funky in I.E. Gary King (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I fixed the table width so that it is even in IE and FF, you just need to use width="X%" instead of width="Xpx". « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds good. Gary King (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to de jure.
    • Done--Tagishsimon (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You abbreviate "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus " and "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" but never use the abbreviation but you don't abbreviate " People's Republic of China" but you use "ROC". Inconsistent.
    • Amended so that abbreviations are offered only when they're later used.
  • Do PRC and ROC both mean the People's Republic of China?
    • No. PRC=China. ROC=Taiwan
  • I fixed one of you date fields in the Israel cite web, just to let you know!
• Otherwise yet another great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • Seconding the use of bullets; not useful at all. Prose can be used in the two situations where they're actually used.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line about UN nations is odd - you mention the PRC and Cyprus, but use a weird parenthetical form for Korea - are the Koreas recognized by one country in the UN? Doubtful. And you omit Israel from that list, even though it has less recognition than the PRC and therefore is a more interesting mention.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose in the Palestine entry needs work.
    • 'Done Gary King (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize the language - I see both 'recognize' and 'recognise'.
    • Done
  • I see no point to giving acronyms when they aren't reused. This applies to SADR, TRNC, and UNSCR.
    • Removed
  • Lots of reference work needed:
    • There's no reference for Israel's lacking relations with 34, and lacking recognition by two.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, there's no references for the Koreas lack of mutual recognition. Also, the source for North Korean independence is a bit wanting; surely we can find something other than a Google ad farm.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cyprus: Why not link directly to the CIA Fact Book?
      • Done Gary King (talk)
    • Some need formatting; not enough capital letters in [2] or [3], for example.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taiwan's ref lacks any mention of the recognition.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, the references work for independence, but there's no or few references at present citing the number of countries recognizing the partially recognized ones.
  • Kosovo stands out by saying "some"; since this situation is in flux I think a justification for the omission needs to be made. Like, "it declared independence on this date, and its status is still in flux, with a number of countries recognizing it"
    • Done Gary King (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rejudge the article later. --Golbez (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Awesome list! Very well done. I only have a few minor suggestions: first the footnotes should be numbered/labeled more clearly. Give each a number (Roman numerals are often used, though letters would be fine too) in order to distinguish them from each other either in the main tables or between each other in the footnotes section. Also, shouldn't reference #1 be considered a footnote rather than a reference (source of information)? Lastley, an external links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reference 1 is part of a template and I'd rather not touch it. Gary King (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! One last thing: the publisher values should be wikilinked wherever possible (ie International Herald Tribune). Drewcifer (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Alright, done, although I only wikified the ones that I know existed (BBC News, NY Times, etc.) Gary King (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]