Talk:Adriatic Sea

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/68Pa7dl5j?url=http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=F24D43C3-8BCE-45EF-94A5-9ADAA413A225 to http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=F24D43C3-8BCE-45EF-94A5-9ADAA413A225

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

the adriatic sea doesnt contain 1,300 islands?

after a good look at the specific location of the adriatic sea, and the islands in it, I am pretty sure that it doesnt have 1.3k+ islands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.100.146 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Outdated map

The map on the main part kf the article its pre 2008. Please update it RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG suggests that the article should consider spinning out some sections. I think this should be considered.
• The lead is quite long: considering the TOOBIG concerns, perhaps this can help with cutting down prose.
• Many sections are out of date, with 2012 numbers from the GAN being used. This includes the "Climate characteristics of some major Adriatic cities" table, "Most populous urban areas on the Adriatic coast" list, "Tourism in the Adriatic Sea area" table, "Major Adriatic ports*, annual transport volume" table
• The History section stops at 2006, and the "Oil and gas" at 2012: can any more recent events be mentioned?
• Per WP:NOTGALLERY, I recommend that the gallery section be moved, and per WP:GALLERY intersperced within the article.

Is anyone interested in addressing the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Adriatic Sea

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that some of the text be spun out into other articles, which I agree with. The lead is also quite long, contributing to the word count concerns. Many sections are out of date, using 2012 figures such as the "Climate characteristics of some major Adriatic cities" table, "Most populous urban areas on the Adriatic coast" list, "Tourism in the Adriatic Sea area" table, "Major Adriatic ports", and annual transport volume" table. The "History" section stops at 2006 and "Oil and gas" stops at 2012. There is also a gallery section, which per WP:NOTGALLERY I recommend that it is removed and the images interspersed within the article text. Z1720 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Could the nominator please specify which GA criteria are not satisfied. "History stopping at 2006" is not an actionable complaint - what specifically need be addressed? The same applies for all other similar complaints. WP:TOOBIG is neither a policy nor a GA criterion. Regarding spinning off material; again, no actionable complaint, just a "recommendation" without any specific overly detailed section. Regarding the gallery; WP:BRD tells what to do - remove it boldly - it does not indicate to start a vaguely worded GA review. Overall, the nomination is not actionable as it notes no particular GA criteria not met and should be closed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Expanding upon my review:

• WP:WIAGA 3a states that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". By not having post-2006 information, it is missing more recent events in its coverage of the topic.
• WP:TOOBIG is part of Wikipedia:Article size, a Wikipedia editing guideline: an overly long article is a good indication that the article might not be in compliance with 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Yes, this might mean that the article might not cover all major aspects of the topic and go into too much detail.
• WIAGA 1b states that the article "complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections." When looking at the length, MOS:LEADLENGTH (a section in MOS:LEAD) says that an article that is too long "is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway". It also says, "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." This article currently has 685 words, and I think it should be evaluated to see what can be trimmed.
• When I have been bold in the past and removed things, I have gotten significant pushback. I prefer subject-matter experts who care about the article make the changes instead.

Reviews are a way for editors to give their opinion on if an article meets the criteria. If the article fulfils the criteria, then this will be closed as keep. As it currently exists, I do not think this article satisfies the GA criteria, per my concerns listed above. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I should also add that there is some uncited text in the article, including citation needed tags from February 2023, which will need to be resolved to fultil WIAGA 2b. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for specifying the issues. Regarding the 3a: I don't find post-2006 events one of main aspects of the Adriatic Sea history. The GA criteria require coverage of main aspects - and it does not require comprehensive coverage meant for FAs. Therefore, I believe you have misinterpreted the 3a criterion making it more stringent than it is. It is difficult to conclude anything else since you have not cited any specific post-2006 event representing a main aspect of the Adriatic Sea history instead of asking others to come up with a justification for your concern.

Regarding the size concerns: You have partially cited MOS:LEADLENGTH. It also says the figures you cited are "suggestions". Therefore, each reviewer should apply judgment if the particular number of words (and more importantly their content) is in line with various policies, guidelines, suggestions etc. I can only conclude you'd prefer a shorter lede. The MOS suggests the lede should be concise but it does not appear to require a specific number of words.

It appears that the nominator is using the review to prompt others to be bold where they ought to be bold passing on unnecessary workload to GA review processes. To be clear, I think the article could be better (it's not an FA after all), but I also think it still complies with the GA criteria referenced above and the nomination should be closed as keep.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)