Talk:Kola Peninsula/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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 Any historical references suggesting how much was mined in the past compared to now?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

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)