Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Administrative divisions of Adygea/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrative divisions of Adygea

[edit]

It is often said that any article that merits Wikipedia's standard for inclusion can be turned into a featured article. It is my intent to test this theory with this particular article, which is an overview of the administrative divisions structure of the Russian Republic of Adygea. Technically, the article meets most of the points outlined in WP:PERFECT (but it would be a great learning experience for me to be proved wrong), and, as such, it can theoretically become a featured article one day. Some of the drawbacks that I know about and am yet to fix is the abundance of red links and lack of English-language references, but other than that I would welcome any suggestions as to how this article can be further improved, what else is missing, what is redundant, and what it would take for this article to become featured.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- What I see is a long list with red links. --Osbus 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's not the kind of peer review I was hoping for. First, there is an intro. Second, I already mentioned the red links in the list. If you have nothing to add, please don't.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I offended you, but what I meant by long list was you needed to expand it, put it into paragraph form. --Osbus 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't at all offended; it's just that your comment didn't sound constructive. As for the paragraph form, I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you could illustrate your suggestion with an example, that'd be much appreciated. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since I don't know anything about this topic, I can't give an example. But you can expand on the characteristics of each division, that would be interesting. --Osbus 20:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, by "division" do you mean the terminology (districts, urban-type settlements, khutors, etc.) or the districts from the list (Koshekhablsky, Teuchezhsky, etc.)? I could write more about the former, but the latter will eventually have their own articles.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the districts from the list. Without some expansion, well, it would be one big list! (but a good, comprehensive one). --Osbus 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs an expanded intro and maybe more infomation on the division itself. -- Underneath-it-All 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any specific information you were hoping to find in the intro but were not able to? I've been working on this article for quite a while, so it's very easy for me to overlook something important, seeing it as self-evident. Would you have any specific suggestions? As for the division itself, we have a whole article about it, and it is linked to. Is that insufficient? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, though just a small one - IMHO red links are not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the article does not integrally rely on their content and they point to correctly worded targets, they can even be extremely helpful (e.g. links to raions). However, I perceive a red link like microdistrict as a much greater problem - it tells me that the article builds upon a concept that is unexplained. --Nikai 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently in the process of collecting information for the article about the microdistrict concept; I can write a stub any day. Microdistrict is no longer a red link. Is there anything else of that nature that caught your eye?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 02:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No - I'd just like to say that I see the primary usefulness of an article on administrative divisions in "drawing a grid" across a part of a country. Such a grid enables to create (or, even better, spot already created) articles on smaller entities. The article already does that, as far as I can see. --Nikai 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too long; information found in the lead should be discussed later on in the article. Putting it on WP:FAC might be a stretch here- perhaps try featured lists? The article as of now contains near no prose, but WP:WIAFA suggests that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. Perhaps some more history could be included, more information like passed by the State Council—Khase on April 26, 2000 with subsequent amendments. AndyZ t 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On the rare occasion when I write an article :), I strive it to be more than a list. One of the reasons of this peer review is to help me find venues to make the article more of an actual article rather than a mindless list. As for the history, I avoided including it on purpose, because:
    1. the article is supposed to tell the reader about the current state of affairs (I update it every time there is a change);
    2. history of administrative divisions of Russia from the 18th century to present will be covered elsewhere. Once that's accomplished, it'll probably benefit this article to provide an overview and backlinks.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Administrative_divisions_of_Adygea/archive1&oldid=191708701"