Talk:Mulyanka

Mulyanka was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Rivers Mid‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article needs a map.

Russia: Physical geography Mid‑importance

	Russia portal 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.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

Why I Failed GA nomination

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 26, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: no, writing is not as good as it can be. not wikipedia's best work by far.

2. Factually accurate?: cited, but incredibly short.

3. Broad in coverage?: not enough information about a river in a historic part of the world. not enough info on industry, history, no map, no discussion of cities or progress of development along its course, cultural life upon the river, wildlife, pollution, river's use in local agriculture, etc..

4. Neutral point of view?: yes not a controversial topic to raise POV problems...unless controversial issues have been omitted.

5. Article stability? seemingly so.

6. Images?: tables seem too large given the text interpreting and extrapolating the data, needs a map before it should be re-nominated for GA. Images are not arranged per guidelines on images per word count (too many image, not enough text), and other usage issues. Placement within article is aesthetically unpleasant, crowded and unbalanced.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

For a river article that has been a GA and may soon be a Featured Article, see Paulins Kill, or a current FA, Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek. --ExplorerCDT 06:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Hi. This is an interesting article but I have some suggestions in light of the GA nomination:

"Explorers of history" sounds odd; it's not clear what you meant to say. Were you talking about explorers or historians?
The ship transport section is not very useful in its current state. If you find a source that explicitly states that there is transport or not, add it, but right now you are making something of a guess, which borders on WP:OR.
Google Maps may not be considered a WP:RS; again, try finding a source which states this information explicitly.

Quarma 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes:

"Explorers" changed to "researchers".
Sentence which looked like guess was removed. I tried to make clear that source mentioned shows that system of navigable rivers in Perm Region consist of 4 rivers and Mulyanka isn't one of them.
Reference to Google Maps changed to geographical atlas. Would it be better?

— D V S ^(?!), 04:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

GA review

Putting the nomination on hold for a week. Certain areas of concern:

A map is sorely needed to locate the river in the article. An uninformed reader might not be able to figure out where it is
A section is needed (maybe a couple) at least to show its relation to the towns/cities/villages where it passes through. For example, how many bridges are over it? Is it used for commercial shipping/transport (it is not classified as navigable, but are there small ships that use it in any case)? The ecology section is very good, however it is overwhelming the article.
A couple of images to show that nature/human relationship would be extremely nice.
The intro might need sources, particularly for numbers cited
The last thing might be a complicated thing however. All the sources cited are in Russian from what I could gather. There is absolutely nothing wrong with citing sources in foreign languages, however, it is also not right that they all be in a foreign language. I know of many articles that have failed GA or FA for this precise reason. As a foreigner myself I know that it is hard to find English sources sometimes (particularly for smaller topics), but it would be extremely nice to dig up some sources in English, especially for the intro and the map. I think that this will be what makes or breaks this GA nomination.
There are some fluency issues, the intro is a bit confusing. It might be a good idea to ask one or two anglophone editors to help up with some clean-up.

Will come back in a week.. Cheers! Baristarim 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with your suggestion i made same fixes:

I composed a map showing the location of Mulyanka in Europe with satellite image where the lower part of Mulyanka can be seen. It is hard to find something in better quality under free license.
The source of numeric data is explicitely cited.
Added photo of nearby street and close-up of bridge construction.
The only English source I found by now is about JSC "LUKOIL-Permnefteorgsintez" whose oil refinery is located near the river. I cited it in the intro of "Ecology" section.

Thanks for advices. — D V S ^[?!], 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

MORE: Lead is way too short, does not summarize the article, refs go after punctuation with no spaces. Ship transport section is only one sentence. GA hold extended 5 days to fix these.Sumoeagle179 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

In the section Research by young ecologists, there is a link in the text. This should probably be moved down to external links or made into a citation somehow. I do not know russian so I am leaving a note here. --Banana04131 18:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed external link to contest results to reference. Thank you for noticing this inconsistency. — D V S ^[?!], 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mulyanka River. 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:

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) 05:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]