Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Crimea/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of cities in Crimea

Featured list candidates/List of cities in Crimea/archive1

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 21:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been working on this list for some time now and have done waves of overhauls to try to get it at the FL level. Given the recent promotion of my FLN for Cities in Luhansk Oblast and my completion of everything I can do from my end for my FLN for Cities in Donetsk Oblast, I thought I'd move ahead and get this nomination started. It's not perfectly ready and I plan on editing it more during the nomination period but considering the lengthy timeframe of the FL process and the benefits of getting feedback while editing, thought it'd be better to get it started now and continue to work on it simultaneously with the nom. Unlike the other two FL noms for Donetsk and Luhansk, this list is unique in that it represents a geographic area with two distinct legal entities: the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and city with special status Sevastopol. Given this and its occupation by Russia since 2014, this list has a larger scope and will naturally be more complex/detailed and longer than the other lists. Imo the legal particulars of Sevastopol can get really confusing so feel free to post questions on this nom or reach out if it helps! Thanks in advance y'all for the suggestions and excited to get this nom started! :) Dan the Animator 21:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is really interesting! I do not speak Russian or Ukrainian, so I cannot speak for the sources, but

The lede is well-written. Don't really have anything to add here.

Thanks! :)

Table formatting seems good to me — great job incorporating a bunch of different complicated info with the dual administrative schemes.

Thanks again!!!

My only real qualm is that we don't have any information on Balaklava; would there be a way to incorporate that into the list while marking it's only recognized as a city by Russia? I feel it's worth including as a de facto city on the peninsula.

I considered this and tried it out but I don't think it's practical. Both the 2001 Ukrainian and 2014 Russian censuses include Balaklava's stats as part of Sevastapol's population numbers (as stated in the efn note next to Sevastapol's numbers), so to have Balaklava included separately would suggest that its counted separately from Sevastapol, which isn't the case. There are also no separate population statistics of Balaklava itself from 2001 as far as I can tell and its unclear what the only 2014 number I found for Balaklava is actually for (my understanding is that it actually represents the population of Balaklava city council (which includes multiple nearby villages/settlements that aren't actually part of Balaklava itself) so it's not ideal to have that number here either). Given this, the only information that would be included in the table for Balaklava would be its alternate names (which are simply all variations of Balaklava) and its de facto/de jure subdivisions, which doesn't really add anything since it's already explained in the lead that Russia and Ukraine both consider Balaklava as part of Sevastapol. Hopefully my explanation makes sense but feel free to let me know if you still think it should be added to the table. I don't feel particularly strongly about it but I also don't see any compelling reason for including it either.

That's all from me for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense with Balakalva; I feel free it's fine to leave it out of the table. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The territory of Crimea, including Sevastopol, has been" - this reads a bit weirdly, because Sevastopol hasn't been introduced, so it's unclear why it gets singled out from the rest of the region here. It also isn't linked until the second usage.

Fixed: removed "including Sevastapol" so it flows better

The lead uses both "recognized" (US spelling) and "recognised" (Commonwealth spelling) and there's a similar inconsistency with other words. Pick one variety of English and use it consistently.

Fixed: standardized to the American spelling and added the Eng-var template too

Sevastopol is overlinked in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

Thanks Generalissima and ChrisTheDude for the reviews and apologies for the very belated reply! Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article and also: based on a suggestion in the recently closed FLN for List of cities in Donetsk Oblast, I decided to go ahead and switch out the infoboxes on all these oblasts lists with coordinate maps with links & locations for each city. For the other articles I feel it adds tremendously but given the .png map image for Crimea is already so detailed and in many ways better than the coord map, let me know which option this list should use (the coord map, the infobox with image, or just the image). I also kept the infobox commented out so feel free to preview it in visual editor too if it helps. Thanks again in advance for all the help! :) Dan the Animator 06:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

If I didn't misunderstand the sentence, while since its annexation, the region has been de facto governed by Russia is missing a comma before "since".
Can anything be done to avoid the triple repetition of the with a recorded population of X people formula?
11 city municipalities and 14 raions and merging them into ten reformed raions - MOS:NUMNOTES states that "comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures", so make it "10" for the sake of consistency.
As previously noted in another similar nomination, a "the" should be added before the name of all three Wikipedias in the notes.
Is there a particular reason why the images have been moved to another section? I think it would make more sense to have them before the table, as is the case in similar lists.

That's all I saw, Dantheanimator. Thanks in advance and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alavense for the review! :) Most of the parts should be fixed now and also reworded the census part so hopefully its better (will rewrite it more though if it helps). About the image section, I wasn't too sure what you had in mind. When I started work on this article, the images were included within the table rows for each city. Due to the larger size and greater complexity of this table compared to the tables in the other oblast cities lists, I decided earlier on to move the photos to a separate section and leave them there so they don't clutter the table. If I'm understanding right, the suggestion is to move the gallery section in between the Administrative divisions and List of cities sections, similar to how List of cities in New Brunswick has the photos above the table? I don't feel too strongly about it but I do think its current location is fine and its better to try to keep the table closer to the lead since its the main focus of the article.

Otherwise, what's your thoughts on how the images should be displayed/formatted? The table as-is already just barely fits on my laptop's full desktop screen and I don't think it would make sense to add additional columns to the table since it'll just cause it to spill out of the screen. I'm also open to removing the section entirely though I think it does add some value (and its also well-sourced). Let me know what you think. Dan the Animator 15:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the edits. In some similar lists (see this one, for instance), the images are included just before the table. But I don't really have a problem with how the images are laid out here, I was just curious about it. Nice work on the list, as always. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah got it. If it weren't for the additional Administrative divisions section, I'd have it laid out the same but that section really pushes the list content lower in the page than ideal. Many thanks again for the comments! :) Dan the Animator 19:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --Pres N 14:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.