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
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. --
Osbus23:09, 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. --
Osbus20:37, 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). --
Osbus00:17, 20 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. --
Nikai23:30, 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. --
Nikai08:59, 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. AndyZt00:52, 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:
the article is supposed to tell the reader about the current state of affairs (I update it every time there is a change);
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.
I also realize that the prose is far from brilliant (it's too dry, for one thing), but I really am not sure how to cover it in such a way as to make it sound compelling. Any ideas?—
Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (
yo?);
16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't think the article will be durable. Several days ago, President of Adygeia was forced to resign, after it has become clear that the Kremlin wants the Republic to be absorbed into the
Krasnodar Krai over next few years. --
Ghirla-трёп-08:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I see your point. Once cleaned up and improved this article would probably indeed fit better with other similar lists. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what can/should be improved to bring this list to a featured status? Thanks.—
Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (
yo?);
01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, apart from a map and a brief historical section (again mentioned above) I think the districts could possibly be put into a table format along relavant data (for example it's capital city, population numbers etc).
CheekyMonkey13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)reply
With this approach, once the articles about the districts are created, there will be a duplication of information (i.e., stats will be mentioned once in the article about the district, and once—in this overview). The main problems is the updates—from my experience people tend to update the first article on the subject they can find, without looking around to see if there are any summaries/overviews. I am not against formatting the list as a table in general, but would not want it to contain too much redundant information.—
Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (
yo?);
13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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. --
Osbus23:09, 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. --
Osbus20:37, 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). --
Osbus00:17, 20 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. --
Nikai23:30, 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. --
Nikai08:59, 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. AndyZt00:52, 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:
the article is supposed to tell the reader about the current state of affairs (I update it every time there is a change);
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.
I also realize that the prose is far from brilliant (it's too dry, for one thing), but I really am not sure how to cover it in such a way as to make it sound compelling. Any ideas?—
Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (
yo?);
16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't think the article will be durable. Several days ago, President of Adygeia was forced to resign, after it has become clear that the Kremlin wants the Republic to be absorbed into the
Krasnodar Krai over next few years. --
Ghirla-трёп-08:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I see your point. Once cleaned up and improved this article would probably indeed fit better with other similar lists. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what can/should be improved to bring this list to a featured status? Thanks.—
Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (
yo?);
01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, apart from a map and a brief historical section (again mentioned above) I think the districts could possibly be put into a table format along relavant data (for example it's capital city, population numbers etc).
CheekyMonkey13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)reply
With this approach, once the articles about the districts are created, there will be a duplication of information (i.e., stats will be mentioned once in the article about the district, and once—in this overview). The main problems is the updates—from my experience people tend to update the first article on the subject they can find, without looking around to see if there are any summaries/overviews. I am not against formatting the list as a table in general, but would not want it to contain too much redundant information.—
Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (
yo?);
13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)reply