More specific citation for first bullet

Jump to: navigation, search


I think we should provide a more specific citation for the statistic in the first bullet. The obvious reason is that it better substantiates the claim. But also, it would be nice to keep this number current over the next few years, and having a more specific source might help with that effort.



ASnieckus (talk)12:34, 21 January 2011

Hi Alison,

I pulled the data from the online database hosted by UNESCO's Institute for Statistics. Because tables can be customised it was not easy to point to a specific url. --- Perhaps a more accurately labelled link?

Updating will need to be done manually --- sadly progress on this statistic is slow (so not too much work in updating the figure).

Mackiwg (talk)10:07, 24 January 2011

I thought maybe you had used the database, but didn't venture to try out the search mechanism. But now I did and with only a little fiddling, I got 34% for the 2008 gross enrolment ratio, total for Sub-S Africa.

My preference would be to create a footnote that lists the criteria for accessing the statistic using the "build your own table" feature. This way we have the info we need to update to 2009 and later data as it becomes available (even if it doesn't change much :( content with current references is more well-received).

Any objection to moving the whole UNESCO link to a footnote? But if its mention in the text lends authority we could start the bullet with "According to UNESCO institute for statistics..."


ASnieckus (talk)15:03, 24 January 2011


That's a good suggestion to move the UNESCO link into a footnote. Much better solution. So no objections to moving this to a footnote.

Good thinking :-)

Mackiwg (talk)15:28, 24 January 2011

I moved the UNESCO reference to the Notes section, including relevant data to facilitate re-accessing the data. I also expanded the note for the world bank reference.

I think standardising citations will be harder than I first thought, but this is another discussion topic. :/


ASnieckus (talk)07:09, 25 January 2011

Thanks Alison,

That looks much better and more functional.

Yeah -- standardisation of citations in online wiki environments is not always straightforward. To many opportunities for exceptions :-).


Mackiwg (talk)09:23, 25 January 2011