Talk:South Aral Sea

Comments

Should this now read something like "The South Aral Sea was a lake in the basin of the former Aral Sea. The area of the South Areal sea now consists of the West Aral Sea, the East Aral Sea (seasonal), the Barsakelmes Lake and the Aralkum Desert..." could then continue mainly as is explaining what happened etc.

This would correct the opening statement of the article which refers to the South Aral Sea using the word "is" which is incorrect when describing a historic feature. It removes the assertion that the South Aral sea was formed when it split from the North Aral sea (this is misleading as the concept of the North and South Aral sea does seem to predate this see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aral_Sea_map_by_Khanikoff_(1851)_2.jpg from 1851 where they are referred to as the little and great sea.

I also think it is also useful to list the four new major features of the area (West Aral Sea, the East Aral Sea, the Barsakelmes Lake and the Aralkum Desert) and there should then be separate wiki pages for all four as these are now all separate features in their own right.

What are other peoples thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.147.188 (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Lakes High Importance

Hi, I changed the importance of North and South Aral Sea to high importance, given the importance of the parent Aral Sea article. However, due how advanced that article is, should these pages exist or be merged with Aral Sea? Thoughts? Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment, but the rational is not clear as it is a circular statement. High importance because importance is high. It would be more clear if stated as number of citations in publications for topical coverage, internationally discussed, size of the body of water or other feature, etc.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)