Wikipedia:Peer review/Administrative divisions of Adygea/archive2

Administrative divisions of Adygea/update

This is a somewhat unusual request for a peer review, because it deals with an already featured list (administrative divisions of Adygea), which was featured fairly recently.

A peer review is requested because the list was so significantly expanded and reworked that it would be wrong to just replace old contents with a new draft without subjecting it to public scrutiny first.

The main differences between the current version and the updated version are:

infobox has been re-designed;
prose has been significantly reworded;
layout was changed;
a new large section on administrative division structure has been added;
"municipal division structure" section has been re-written;
additional references have been provided;
the map was adjusted;
layout of district composition sections has been changed;
content of district composition sections has been expanded.

Any feedback will be much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Renata3

The following is a cross-post from User talk:Ezhiki#Adygea, with pieces irrelevant to this peer review edited out:

I have few suggestions/observations:

Lead is crying to be longer ;)
Nice new map :)
The summary table of units of administrative division is great. Just move it to the right (just add align=right next to class="wikitable") so that there is no huge empty space on the right.
I really don't like all those intendations. I think different size headings are just fine and do job well enough.
I really don't like ==Rural localities== Source: [11]. You should put that [11] after sentences taken from that source (it's ok tuo cite the same source 50 times :)
Sources: 1897–2002: [11] 2007: [2] should be incorporated with the table (extra row at the bottom)
There is no need to bold things like "municipal urban okrug of the city of Maykop" or "municipal urban settlements"
^ a b 2002 Russian census should have more details: where the date got published?

Renata 00:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not sure what else could be included in the lead, and, in my opinion, its length is just right.

3. The summary table is now right-aligned. Better?

4. The reason why identations were used instead of different level headings was because there are too many nested sections. When headings are used, the font of the deepest ones is almost smaller than the font used in the body text.

5. We tried to cite the same source multiple times. The output, in my view, is almost unreadable (this revision shows how it looks like). Any other opinions?

6. Implemented. Better?

7. Why not? They emphasize the most important concept in each passage.

8. That was an oversight. It is now fixed.

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Mus Musculus

Hello and great job on this article. Some feedback:

The new infobox is WAY better. It is a much neater table that displays the information in a more concise and useful fashion.
The new History section needs some attention paid to its visual chunking - it looks bad on the page. Too many small paragraphs. It would look better grouped into larger sections for readability.
The Administrative division structure" is not really a logical hierarchy. You say that the district governs the inhabited localities, but they are given the same hierarchical level as the district.
The subheadings under "Rural localities" need to be visually distinct, not just indented - it is hard to discern if the hierarchy is just visual to separate listings or if they are intended to be smaller subsections of Rural localities.
I don't actually care for the table designs under the "List of administrative and municipal divisions" heading. They are too big for the information that they display, and there is too much white space. Consider sizing them down - for example, there is a huge column that displays one number. Consider using shading for better visual presentation.

Overall great work and I would still support it for Featured List status after the rework. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I am planning to expand the History section a bit more. However, I am not sure how to bundle the smaller chunks into larger ones, as they are grouped by time periods.

3. Districts govern some, but not all inhabited localities. Both Adygea's cities are not in jurisdiction of any district, and it is theoretically possible that any other inhabited locality (urban or rural) may be subordinated directly to the Republic. The grouping is thus in accordance with the source (Law of Adygea on Administrative-Territorial Division). Perhaps a clarification of some sort is in order?

4. I think we had tried every possible formatting there is, and identation so far worked the best. If you have suggestions as to exactly what else can be tried, you are very welcome to voice them here.

5. The design of those table, unfortunately, is another source of frustraction. I will happily re-design them if anyone has ideas as to what exactly will work for them. Could you, please, clarify, which cells you believe would benefit from shading?

Thanks much for your valuable feedback!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]