Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adriatic Sea/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 27 August 2012 [1].

Adriatic Sea[edit]

Adriatic Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I would like to improve this article beyond its present GA status and I believe it may already meet FA criteria. Several other editors contributed to the article, and it was copyedited by Allens. -- Tomobe03 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – There are a couple of references where the title is entirely in UPPER CASE. These stick out like a sore thumb; could they be made consistent (per 2c) with the other citation titles? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Changed to lowercase now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on referencing Printed books that have been used more than once are the only ones listed under "Bibliography", even though there are tons more used as references in the article. If anything, it makes it a lot harder to read and is inconsistent in its use of notes. It might be better to list them in short format as with Norwich and Pinter, Grenerczy & Weber. Also, printed books that have been accessed through Google Books should not be treated as online sources with retrieval dates since they are merely scans of printed works. Keep the handy links to Google Books by all means, but the retrieval dates should be removed as they add no useful information. Peter Isotalo 12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, it would be preferable (or required) to remove accessdate parameter from cite book templates, move full references to all the books to the "Bibliography" subsection and use short {{sfn}} references in the "References" section even if a particular book is used only once as a source. Did I get this right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the silly question, once I read it again i got it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this matches the application of the accessdate parameter I've seen elsewhere - it means an editor retrieved a copy of the document at some specific date, and it's actually useful to know when the google books link was last verified to be working by an editor - those links aren't permanent just because they're at google books. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Tomobe. I'll admit to being too wordy at times.
Joy, the reference is to a specific edition of a printed work which will not change, not even on Google Books. More importantly, the printed work exists irrespective of Google Books and is not dependent on that source for its verifiability. The source will remain just as reliable even if Google changes the link or removes the digital copy. Google Books is in this case nothing but the equivalent of a traditional library, and we never specify when we bought or borrowed a paper book or at what time we read a certain section of it.
Peter Isotalo 15:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I already started moving the book references to the bibliography and using {{sfn}} short references, but I'll need some time to complete it - I think 87 such refs need moving - because I'll move them one by one to make sure nothing gets messed up. As far as the access date parameter is concerned, I'll keep it where it is right now until all the book refs are moved to bibliography and then (if no consensus to the opposite is reached) remove them in a single edit which can be reverted if need be if that's all right. I don't see anything wrong with use of the accessdate parameter, but I admit it adds little - except when was the google books url accessed - but I'm not really bent on either solution.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The retrieval dates make the notes look a lot more cluttered, though, which makes them harder to read. I don't intend to press the issue, though.
Thanks for the effort. Having short form notes as well as a bibliography may seem like it only takes up more space, but it makes it a lot easier to get an overview of which sources have been used. And with the use of {{sfn}}, it shouldn't make it much harder for readers to follow up refs.
Peter Isotalo 18:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes we do, because the parameter is generic enough - it tells you the time someone had cited from that book, in a sense it's just another parameter more specific than e.g. the book's edition. It allows readers to see when was the last time an editor (claimed to have) verified the reference, which is much clearer than having to roam through a large amount of diffs in the page history. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree since this kind of information has nothing to do with establishing verifiability of a reference. But an FAC is not the place to delve deeper on the matter. I'll bring this up for discussion over at {{cite book}}. Please join in if you're interested.
Peter Isotalo 09:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the book references are now moved to the bibliography subsection with {{sfn}} used instead in the prose. I kept the access date parameters for now - at least until some comments are drawn from the {{cite book}} discussion you mentioned above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will have more comments as I review the body of this interesting article in more detail, but one thing I noticed right away in the lead was the phrase "a body of water separating the Apennine Peninsula from the Balkan peninsula". Would it not be better to use the more recognizable alternate term "Italian Peninsula" rather than "Apennine Peninsula". I realize Appennine Penninsula links to Italian Penninsula, but it is usually best to use the form that is in most common use and is most likely to be recognized non expert readers. This is particularly true in the article lead as people often merely glance at the lead of an article when they look up the answer to a quick "What is this?" question. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same issue was brought up by Dank - additional information is now in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on history. Since I'm a history buff, I've been looking primarily at the history section, and I believe it could use some improvement. Right now it's all strictly limited to military-political history, and of that very little is about maritime power itself, but rather land ownership. I would expect that control of the sea itself would be the main focus while political and military control of the surrounding land would be only a secondary concern. Besides one or two passing remarks in the first paragraph, there's absolutely nothing about the history of trade, culture, economy, mythology, religion, folklore, etc. Every small aspect can't be covered, but I would expect a much broader history in an FA. Peter Isotalo 19:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll tackle the issue(s) shortly - I plan to add information in appropriate places of the History section and add a new section to the article (likely not that long) regarding mythology, lore and similar.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I usually do copyediting at FAC, but there's an in-use template and I was reverted on this edit, so I'll make comments here. Btw, on that edit ... {{lang-sl|Jadransko morje}} produces Slovene: Jadransko morje, which is in a bold, ugly font on my screen, unlike with the other lang-xx templates. I recommend just writing it out as: [[Slovene language|Slovene]]: ''Jadransko morje''. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your edit and Eleassar's revert, but I see no problem with the template, I get "Jadransko morje" in italics, not boldface. Could anyone else confirm this - maybe something should be changed in the template's settings?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I can fix it by changing my Firefox settings under Options/Content/Advanced, by forcing my browser to use the fonts I select. Is anyone else seeing the bold font? - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the in-use template, I don't normally use that, but moving the cite book templates takes a while before I can save a change, so I thought to prevent edit conflicts by using that template. I expect to move all (or nearly all) of them today.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind, and most FAC reviewers comment on this page rather than making edits directly. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "separating the Apennine Peninsula from the Balkan peninsula": I don't have any objection to using "Apennine Peninsula" instead of "Italy" throughout if that's what you want to do, but Italy should be mentioned at the first reference, because most readers won't know what the Apennine Peninsula is: "separating the Apennine Peninsula of Italy from the Balkan peninsula"
Done. I tried to introduce information that those are synonyms in the first reference (in the lead and in "Geography" section).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bosnia–Herzegovina": Bosnia-Herzegovina, per that article, per established usage, and because the meaning isn't "between Bosnia and Herzegovina", it's a state (now, sometimes) called Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I think I got them all changed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—the northern being the shallowest and the southern being the deepest,": nonparallel punctuation; either use dashes or commas on both ends. Per WP:DASH, commas would be better.
Changed to comma.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Otranto Sill, a decrease in depth, is located at the border": "a decrease in depth" isn't idiomatic for a place. There are several options, depending on what you want to say: an undersea ridge or plateau, for instance.
That's an underwater ridge. Unfortunately underwater ridge redirects to mid-ocean ridge and the Otranto Sill is not one, so I did not wikilink that. There's a possible source explicitly defining the Otranto Sill as a ridge in an issue of The Biologist magazine, but that's available online with a paid subscription only. Do you think adding that source is required or at least of any use to the article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you have is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Adriatic's salinity is lower than the Mediterranean's because the former collects a third of the fresh water flowing into the latter,": "former" and "latter" can often be avoided, as here: "The Adriatic collects a third of the fresh water flowing into the saltier Mediterranean". - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plate's movement contributed to the Alpine orogeny and Apennine tectonic uplift via its collision with the likewise-moving Eurasian plate.": It would probably be more readable and more relevant, in the lead at least, to say when and how the Adriatic was created.
I tried to clarify this by adding a sentence there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Adriatic Sea is significant to the economies of the countries found along its coasts, especially in terms of fisheries and tourism.": I think I'd go with: "Fisheries and tourism are significant sources of income all along the Adriatic coast", assuming that's accurate.
Revised as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ancient peoples of Italy": "Ancient Italy" is a proper noun; "Ancient" by itself isn't a proper adjective. I'd go with: "peoples of Ancient Italy".
Revised as suggested. However, there is an article called Ancient peoples of Italy - should something be done with that title then?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title can stay, but the capitalization of "Ancient" in the text there should go. The sources of that article don't support the capitalization of "Ancient" because, except for one translation, they're all in Italian. Our list article is List of ancient peoples of Italy. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eastern Adriatic coast": (several places in the article). It depends on what you mean ... since you say "shores", I think you want to lowercase "eastern". "Eastern Adriatic" is a term sometimes used to mean the Western Balkans.
Fixed. I also got several cases of "western" in the process.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During classical antiquity, the Adriatic's shores were initially inhabited by the Ancient peoples of Italy—the Etruscan civilization becoming the most prominent before the Roman Republic's rise—on the Western Adriatic coast, and by the Illyrians along the Eastern Adriatic coast.": Here and elsewhere, be on the lookout for ways to reduce the number of pauses necessary by rearranging your clauses and avoiding repetition. This reads more smoothly as: During classical antiquity, Illyrians inhabited the eastern Adriatic coast, and the western coast was inhabited by the peoples of Ancient Italy, mainly Etruscans, before the Roman Republic's rise.
Revised as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "colonisation": This article is American English elsewhere, so: colonization
The peer reviewer tool indicates otherwise, pointing out only one AE spelling (meter) which is found in references only as a title of a cited work. I'm not a native speaker of English though so I could very well be horribly wrong.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American English dictionaries, such as this one, give "colonization". - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm aware "colonization" is AE spelling, it's just that I was under impression that the rest of the article is in BE since there are a lot of cases of "metres", "favourably" etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a problem, because everything I saw was American English. But I'm only doing two sections. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emporion (trading stations)": ... station
Changed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saw the Carolingian Empire's rise and subsequently the Frankish Kingdom of Italy that controlled": saw the rise of the Carolingian Empire and then the Frankish Kingdom of Italy, which controlled
Revised as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During much of the 12th and 13th centuries, Venice and the Republic of Genoa were engaged in the warfare ending in the War": I don't follow.
Oops. A stray pipe ended up in that wikilink which was meant to point to the War of Chioggia. I fixed that, and tried to clarify the sentence a bit. Hope that works better now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sixth Ottoman-Venetian War": Okay, now's the time for a dash (at FAC, at least), since this was a war between the Ottomans and the Venetians. (And this is the last I'll say about dashes; it's a contentious topic on Wikipedia, out of proportion to its importance.)
Dash inserted.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "via unifying": "by unifying", or "from"
Changed to "by unifying".--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The treaty reversed all wartime annexations, transferred the islands of Cres, Lastovo and Palagruža, the cities of Zadar and Rijeka, Istria and most of the Slovenian Littoral to communist Yugoslavia, guaranteed the independence of Albania, and created the Free Territory of Trieste (FTT) as a city-state.": See WP:Checklist#series. In general, if there's one element in a list more complex than the others, you want to move that to the end of the series; that can be done twice here: The treaty reversed all wartime annexations, guaranteed the independence of Albania, created the Free Territory of Trieste (FTT) as a city-state, and gave communist Yugoslavia most of the Slovenian Littoral, as well as Istria, the islands of Cres, Lastovo and Palagruža, and the cities of Zadar and Rijeka.
Revised as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the southernmost flank of Iron Curtain's": the southernmost flank of the Iron Curtain
Revised as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The war that ensued": See WP:EGG. "The ensuing war". I got the sense that there may be other "Easter Eggs" in the links, but per my standard disclaimer, I don't generally check links.
Copyedited as suggested, and that easter egg is now removed - I'll look for any other ones that may be there (I can't honestly say if there are any left).--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "effectively land-locked": effectively land-locking
Fixed that one. In the process I noticed (and fixed) a glaring mistake - Montenegro declared independence... - effectively land-locking Serbia. (by 2006 there was no Yugoslavia - FR Yugoslavia was renamed Serbia and Montenegro in 2003 with Serbia and Montenegro as constitutive elements of the state union. Once Montenegro left the union, all that was left to be land-locked was Serbia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, so far so good on prose per standard disclaimer for the two sections I checked: the lead, and the extensive History section. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm now nearly done moving cite book templates and I'll head for these right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, well done, I'm striking "otherwise" ... those two sections are fine now. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Given the importance of the Adriatic to the Roman Empire, and the importance of the Empire to the history of that region, I think the coverage of the Roman period in the history section is inadequate. I would suggest creating a named Roman subsection (like the one already there for the Middle Ages). I would recommend that, in addition to the comments you already have on the Illyrian Wars. I would suggest as minimum a brief mention of the following:

  • Roman military and economic power in the Adriatic began to increase rapidly after the establishment of a major navel base at Brundisium (now Brindisi) during the Punic Wars in order keep Carthaginian shipping out of the Adriatic.
  • During the Roman (and Byzantine) period the two major trade ports on the Adriatic were Brundisium on the western shore, and Dyrrhachium, now Durres in Albania]] on the eastern shore. Dyrrhchium was the western end of the Via Egnatia, the major Roman road across the Balkans, which terminated at (Byzantium/Constantinople).
  • There were naval blockades of both Brundisium, and Dyrrhachium during the civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey. Also Caesar's campaign against Pompey was held for 3 months by winter storms on the Adriatic that delayed Mark Antony from reaching him with reinforcements. It might also be worth mentioning that Antony and Octavian crossed the Adriatic with an army for their final battle with Caesar's assassins Brutus and Cassius.
  • Although, as you already mention, the eastern shore of the Adriatic technically became a Roman Provence following the Illyrian wars from 229 to 168 BC, Roman political control of the region did not become absolute until Tiberius crushed the Great Illyrian Revolt in 9 AD.

I have some decent sources. If people agree that this would be appropriate, and if no one beats me to it, I can add some material on this in the next couple of days. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started implementing my own comments. Please stop me if you see a problem. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just returned from a one-day trip, so I just got to see this. Thank you very much for the great suggestion and offer to lend a hand, I appreciate it very much!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coverage of the Roman period is now appropriate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - most images check out (CC, Flickr, PD-own and similar), however there are a few with questions and possible issues:

  • File:Adriatic Sea map.png - Which data or information was used to create the map?
  • File:Battle_of_Lissa.jpg - US-copyright situation needs to be established (See commons documentation for template:PD-art, it has a second parameter for more specific copyright tags. Also documentation of template:pd-old offers a list of possible alternate tags).
  • File:Die_Seeschlacht_bei_Lissa.jpg - see above (lacks US-specific tag).
  • File:Novaral.jpg lacks US-specific tag. Also it notes a "PD-GWDPA"-license as "Permission". Entering "template:PD-GWDPA" on commons leads to an "insufficient copyright information" page. Frankly you'll need another more experienced image specialist here to assess the situation, that's far outside my league.
  • File:Boundary_between_Italy_and_Free_Territory_of_Trieste.png - i am not sure, this can be used: the original source image has "source = my collection" and "author = User:Melo86". "My collection" is very vague, how can we be sure, that this collection consists of copyright-free images? (maybe ping Melo86 for further background info about the image history?).
  • File:TrattatoDiOsimo.jpg has "own work" as source for a close-range photography of high ranking politicians (looks like a newspaper photo). The history and original source of this image should be clarified and stated in the image summary. GermanJoe (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • " each covering about the same area of 405.78 square kilometres". There's no way these two islands have an area of exactly 405.78 km sq each, and if they did, then "about" would not be appropriate. I'm curious whether the cited source (two sentences later) is the source for all of of this info. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The 2nd paragraph in the flora and fauna subsection of Biogeography and ecology (which begins: "A number of rare and threatened species are also found along the Adriatic's eastern coast") has a couple of source citation and completeness issues.

  • The paragraph doesn't cite a source. I suspect that this [2], a source you site elsewhere, was the source of the information. If so it should be cited explicitly, if not some source citation needs to be provided.
  • That same source also says: "Several rare and threatened species, such as the monk seal and sea turtles find safe haven in Croatian waters of the Adriatic." I would think this would merit mention in the article, especially the part about monk seals, since the Mediterranean monk seal is so extremely endangered.
  • The last sentence of the section reads: "Only a small fraction of the fish found in the Adriatic are attributed to recent processes such as Lessepsian migration, cases of escape from mariculture or similar." I find that hanging "or similar" very annoying. I suggest either completing it to "or similar causes" or just deleting it as it is kind of redundant with "such as" anyway. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to address these comments myself.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • A distinct leaning to the eastern coast is detectable in the text and sourcing.
  • The history section needs a good deal of work: "the western coast was inhabited by the peoples of Ancient Italy, mainly Etruscans, before the Roman Republic's rise." Really? The Etruscan heartland is entirely on the opposite side of Italy, though they did control a shortish stretch of the Adriatic coast, well to the north, at their point of maximum expansion. What does the very respectable ref actually say? Subject to that I'd change "mainly" to "including".
  • Should probably mention that to the Romans "Italy" (Italy (Roman Empire)) extended round to include Istria.
I added coverage of Istria (and mentioned the provinces of Dalmatia and Macedonia on the Eastern shore) and its important Roman Colony at Pula. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravenna is not mentioned at all in the history, but this was the final capital of the Western Roman Empire itself (402-476) and then both the Ostrogothic Kingdom, which ruled almost all the Adriatic coastline on both sides, and the Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna, which more or less controlled pretty substantial territories. The Adriatic has never had more geopolitical significance than at this period, which is skipped over in a short sentence.
You make a very good point about Ravenna, I have added coverage of it up to the end of the Western Empire to the Roman section. I agree that there should be more about the Byzantine reconquest of Italy, and, if nobody else does, I may add something on it to the middle ages section in the next couple of days, but I am hoping that the nominator of this article will become a little more active in addressing some of the comments. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comment is now fully addressed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Nice additions. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Muslim states on the Adriatic coasts are not mentioned.
Truth be told, that's probably because the Emirate of Bari was a blimp on the historical radar; analogously, the Narentines aren't mentioned, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the current text "The 15th and the 16th centuries brought about the Byzantine Empire's destruction in 1453 and the Ottoman Empire's expansion that reached Adriatic shores in present-day Albania and Montenegro as well as the immediate hinterland of the Dalmatian coast..." surely significantly post-dates Muslim expansion, or attempts at it, on the Eastern coast - a complicated subject I know little about. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the good thing is that you found another much clearer error there - the Ottoman Empire actually controlled a patch of the eastern coastline up north with the reasonably notable port of Makarska between 1499 and 1646. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of factoids about Venice, but the extent to which it controlled the Adriatic at its height is not really conveyed.
  • In the Middles Ages we should talk of the Republic of Ragusa (the actual title of the article) not that of Dubrovnic.

...and so on. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments After 20 days and no support, I think this nomination would benefit from being archived at this time. There has been a lot of changes to the article, and issues, including the image review, have not been addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2012 (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_article_candidates/Adriatic_Sea/archive1&oldid=509441485"