Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of districts of Sri Lanka/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [1].

List of districts of Sri Lanka

[edit]
Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I withdrew the first nomination of this list in July because of a major error in the statistics given (the area column). I finally found a ref from the government's statistics department, and the information is now accurate. All the other concerns raised at the previous nom have been fixed, so I think it's time for another try. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've renominated this because there wasn't a lot wrong with the first nomination and I see that you've now got rid of the "notable attributes" column which I think is a good move. I do have a few comments however

  • In the table the three area columns aren't sorting correctly. For example on the land area column, Colombo and Jaffna districts are appearing at the bottom when they should be at the top. My guess is that it is sorting on the actual text rather than the numerical values.
  • There are a few minor prose problems in the last paragraph of the lead.
By 1955, the district had become the main administrative unit. It is not clear to me why 1955 is significant here. Were provinces abolished then, or was there some other significant administrative change?
I think the bit about the creation of Mullaitivu and Gampaha districts should go as part of the description of the provisions of the constitution of 1978 as otherwise the chronology reads rather oddly.
...and the current constitution states... when I read this I thought that there must be a later constitution than 1978 but this is not the case. I would remove the word "current" here.
These districts may be subdivided or amalgamated by the resolution of... I would remove the word "the" before "resolution" or possibly replace it by "a".

I hope these comments are helpful. Boissière (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the sorting. Yes, districts replaced provinces as the main administrative unit in 1955. I thought that was clear, and the following line says provinces became the main unit later on again. Would you suggest a rewording for this? The others are fixed I think. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 00:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Sorting problem fixed. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest putting In 1955 provinces were abolished and districts became the main administrative unit. Its the use of the worb "By" (and to a lesser extent "had") in the original sentence which, to me, implies something had happened before 1955 rather than in that year. Boissière (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see what you mean. How is it now? I didn't actually use "abolished", since I can't find any sources on what happened to the provinces, but it is clear that the district became the main admin unit. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I have just realised that I have not formally said Support. Boissière (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The list is up to FL standards. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved comments from Diaa
  1. Why do u reference to a book while you could reference the official census found on Department of Census and Statistics website ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reference do you mean? I have used books for the history part; these are not covered by the Census and Statistics Department.
    I meant here the Population note and reference. You can say Population (2001 Census).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right. The book is talking about the census (includes information about the estimates and reasons, and also mentions that the 2001 census is the latest) and is a reliable third party ref, so I thought it would be alright there. I didn't include the official census itself because it's being used as a general reference. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The list isn't comprehensive. When were the Provinces established? What is the population increase? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Provinces are not the focus of this list. I didn't think this was necessary.
    Ok, provinces aren't necessary. How about the increase of population from 1991 to 2001? It's a bit interesting...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you suggest including this? I've checked a few other lists, and didn't see this sort of thing. I'd appreciate it if you could provide an example or tell me how you think it should be included. Also, I have a doubt about how this would look and if it really is necessary; wouldn't the reader wonder why it includes population increase only for a certain period of time? On the other hand, if we are going to include every statistic regarding that, the article will focus unduly on population increase, which would make it look like a demographic history article. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't give a note in Population Density, just add per square km and also add the miles conversion.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Conversion templates added. I have left a note in place saying that land area is used for calculations. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Give the reference to the Population and not a note. Add a sign for estimates indicating that the figures are estimates.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Symbol added to indicate the estimates. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd like to suggest merging Provinces of Sri Lanka with this list like the featured list List of districts of West Bengal--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging would be entirely inappropriate IMO. Provinces are the country's main administrative unit, and Districts are secondary. The scope of each topic is wide and both should have its own article to cover them. This article is about the administrative divisions of a country, whereas the list you mention is about a single state. Note that the administrative divisions of India and Sri Lanka are different, and it is not possible to compare them that simply. Your suggestion would be similar to merging States and territories of India with the lists of divisions and districts of each state. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much improved from the time of the first FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_districts_of_Sri_Lanka/archive2&oldid=319141976"