Talk:Kola Peninsula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Kola Peninsula has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Russia / Physical geography (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.
 

Map[edit]

Could someone annotate the map? It's not notated on the map. Tempshill 18:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A modern map would be nice, too. ;-) Dricherby 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Darker parts of past[edit]

While we don't want to unduly dwell on bad things in the past, I do think the article needs a bit more about the militarization of the peninsula—tunnels for strategic nuclear submarines, as many as 40 military airfields,..) and the GULAG camp at Vorkuta where the coal mines were worked by prisoners, political and other. Here is an article about a monument to the victims, whose descendants in Murmansk number about 2,000. Original Novosti story here. (Note the use of the phrase "special settlers.") PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the information about the gulag camp in Vorkuta would be appropriate in this article :), but overall you are right. The article, however, is far from complete, and the information about the Soviet and modern periods is especially lacking. Thanks for the two links—it's not much, but I'll try to incorporate them into text when working on the appropriate sections. Or, if you would like to lend a hand, please by all means start those sections yourself. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 20, 2011; 13:44 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I was asked to comment on this article in preparation for a GAN. I have not read the article in detail, so there may be several prose and grammar issues which I do not cover; I will instead try to conclude on the content:

  • There are a few paragraphs which could be merged as they are rather short. Single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided all-together.
  • Content-wise, the geography and history sections look good.
  • Probably not directly a GA criteria, but I would have liked to see more images, particularly of the urban areas.
  • As I understand (and please correct me if I am wrong), but both Murmansk and other larger settlements fall are part of the Kola Peninsula. I would have liked a somewhat clearer definition if they are or not, and if they are included, these urban areas need to be covered in the article. Don't worry if you feel you're overlapping with the Murmansk Oblast article.
  • There should be some mention on transport, either under economics or in its own section.
  • The political and administrative coverage is sufficient—this is an article on a natural, not a politically defined, geographical area.
  • I find the economics part a bit short, partially because I'm expecting more on the urban areas.

Hope this is useful. Arsenikk (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for the thorough review; it's very helpful indeed! I'll definitely be addressing all of these points before the GAN nomination. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 7, 2011; 17:44 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kola Peninsula/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 17:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I'm just starting the review, but I would like to alert the editors that Checklinks found that ref #38 contains a dead link. Please fix. Thanks! --Tea with toast (話) 18:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments before final review[edit]

I have nearly finished my review of the article, and am pleased to find the article is such good condition. I appreciate the immense changes that have taken place since the last time this article was up for GA review. Nice job! Really, I think the only changes that need to be made to satisfy GA criteria is the dead link fix that I mentioned earlier; however, there are a few more items that could be added to benefit the article.

1) The article conveys the importance of mining and mineral resources in the area, but I feel more could be written on the specifics of it. (Either in the "natural resources" section or "economy"). Are there any resources available to show how many tons of various ores are extracted/sold each year? Any historical references suggesting how much was mined in the past compared to now? At the very least, there are few numbers from Murmansk Oblast#Economy that could be mentioned here (although no need to repeat everything from that article here).

2) The article briefly mentions thousands of people forcibly sent to Kola during the Stalin years. I would think that there are more resources available on that topic that could be used to expand that paragraph in "Soviet period" section.

I will put this article on hold until changes are made. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 19:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and helpful comments.
  1. I've removed ref #38 and a portion of the sentence it references as it is not entirely accurate. The Northern Fleet is administered from nearby Severomorsk, and although at any given time there are, of course, ships in Murmansk, to say that Murmansk is "home" to the entire fleet is somewhat misleading (although not entirely incorrect). Hope that addresses the issue.
  2. Regarding the volumes of natural resources extracted/sold, I see what you mean, but I deliberately omitted that kind of information from the article. For one, having a bunch of raw stats on ore extraction makes for a rather boring read and often doesn't tell much to a non-specialist (for example, is 5,000 tons of ore a year a lot? an average volume? negligibly small? What about 500,000? Most people would have no clue.). Secondly, such numbers aren't really available just for the Kola Peninsula, since the production volumes are normally tracked by political/administrative divisions, not by geographical entities. And while Kola Peninsula accounts for most of Murmansk Oblast's territory, it does not account for all of it. I feel it would be misleading to present oblast-specific figures as if they only relate to the peninsular portion.
  3. I added a couple more sentences about the forced labor. Please let me know if that works or if you had something else in mind.
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2012; 16:43 (UTC)


I understand your reasoning on topic of adding numbers for natural resources/mining. You are correct that many people probably would not comprehend what those numbers mean. I had hoped it might be able to translate to something like you have for the fishing industry (that it represents 20% of Russia's fish). But I understand that the numbers just may not be available (or accurate, as you noted about the Oblast vs the Peninsula), so that's fine. Also, thanks for the addition you added about forced labor. That fits in nicely.--Tea with toast (話) 23:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)



Final review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Thanks for all your hard work! Well done!


Tea with toast (話) 23:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for taking time to do a thorough review!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2012; 11:45 (UTC)