Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of districts of Sri Lanka/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 02:20, 7 August 2009.

List of districts of Sri Lanka

 * Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal  talk +Under house arrest!+ 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm withdrawing this nom. I have done this in rather a hurry, and there seems to be a major error with the article. I cannot work on this right now, so I'll withdraw it now and come back when the article is fixed and ready for another try. Thanks to everyone who reviewed the article and helped improve it :) ≈ Chamal  talk 01:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for the past few days. Featured content are an extinct species at Wikiproject Sri Lanka so I thought it was about time it got another one. It was hard to find references -especially web based ones- about the subject (please remember that this is not a highly developed country we are talking about :)) Sources are very few even in the national library. But I have tried to find as many reliable sources as possible, and I think the sources given qualify as that. Anyway, I will make the best effort to address any issues raised here. ≈ Chamal  talk +Under house arrest!+ 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question - What is the list sorted on? It doesn't seem to be in alphabetic order of district name which is what I was expecting. Boissière (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sorted by Province. Think it'd be better to change it to alphabetical order of districts then? ≈ Chamal  talk 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically yes. See similar featured lists such as List of counties in Texas, List of counties in New York or, nearer to Sri Lanka, List of districts of West Bengal. Boissière (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - arranged by alphabetical order. ≈ Chamal  talk 04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I've had a longer look at the article and have made some more general comments below. Boissière (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Images in the article already had alt text, and I've made them more descriptive now. However, there is one image in a template that doesn't have alt text, and I don't think the Template:politbox supports it. I'll check. ≈ Chamal  talk 04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - I've added a new parameter to the template and alt text added. Hope it's ok now. ≈ Chamal  talk 13:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that didn't work; see the "alt text" button in the toolbox on this page. Looks like there's a typo in the template. More important, the alt text doesn't tell the non-expert visually impaired reader what each image looks like. For example, "Area map of Badulla District in the Uva Province of Sri Lanka" is a bit helpful, but unless you already know what the Uva Province is, you'll be out of luck. Since that image already appears in the Badulla row of the table, which already says that the Badulla district is in the Uva province, most of the alt text is redundant anyway. It might be better for the alt text to read something like "This district in east central Sri Lanka runs roughly north–south." That way, it'll be giving useful info, which is not mere repetition. There's a similar problem in the (non-working) alt text for the coat of arms. Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody had changed the template parameter. Fixed now. I'll get working on the article ASAP. Please give me a day or two; I'm a bit busy in real life now. ≈ Chamal  talk 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed the alt text for the maps and coat of arms. Hope it's improved now. Also, another user added some images to the article and I've organized these into a gallery. I thought a gallery could be included per WP:IG in this instance. Unfortunately the Template:Gallery does not support alt text so these images are without it. I have tried to add this to the template but it's hard without changing the way it is used (which is not practical considering the large number of pages it is used on). What would you suggest about this? ≈ Chamal  talk 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The gallery doesn't satisfy the WP:IG criteria: it's just a random set of images as far as I can see. Better would be to add a column to the table, containing an example image from each district. It's OK to leave a lot of entries blank in that column. If a gallery is really required, please use a table to create it as per WP:PICTURE ; then you can add alt text for each image. Eubulides (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another option, if a gallery is really required, is to use Image gallery, which I just now created. It's like Gallery but it does alt text. Eubulides (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the gallery. I didn't intend to include one in the first place anyway. ≈ Chamal  talk 02:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more general comments Boissière (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a bit concerned about the Notable Attributes column. Whilst there is nothing wrong with the information that has been put here, there are no criteria listed as to what is a "notable" attribute. There is quite a range of different sorts of information in this column and a lot of them don't really have much to do with the districts has administrative entities. Another consequence of having this column is that in future people may be tempted to add what they consider "interesting" bits of information in there claiming they are notable attributes.
 * The lead mostly describes the history of various sub-national administrative units over the years and I am not sure how relevant much of this information is to a list of the modern districts. I think that you could remove (but not lose - see below) much of paragraphs 2 and 3 and perhaps add some more info about present day districts - for example are they divided into further subdivisions?
 * I was slightly surprised that there isn't an separate article about districts in Sri Lanka - are they run by an elected council? - what are their competencies? etc. Now I know that the presence or absence of such an article isn't directly relevant to this FLC but if you had one then you could put the history into that article. (Actually I have just noticed that the List of districts of Sri Lanka was originally Districts of Sri Lanka. Perhaps the latter should be made into a more general description of what a district actually is.)
 * First point: I wasn't too sure about that column too. I've added the things that these districts are famous for in the country. I'll trim it a bit and remove the less significant stuff. ≈  Chamal  talk 02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the second and third points; there isn't much to say about the districts. They don't really have administrative powers; it's really the provinces and municipal councils etc (which are not directly under the districts) that have actual adminitrative powers. The District Secretariat has very limited powers. There is nothing much to include in an article really apart from the history. I don't think there'd be much point in keeping a separate article since it can have no more info that this :) The original article was a list too, and I just improved on it. It was User:Dabomb87 who renamed it per WP:LISTNAME (which I wasn't aware of) :P Anyway I will add some more info on the current structure and powers as you suggested. ≈ Chamal  talk 02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a note about what is included in the notable attributes column and removed some info that was not very significant. Hope this helps to reduce the confusion. ≈ Chamal  talk 15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added tasks of the district secretariat. Only stuff like coordinating are done at district level since as I've already mentioned, the actual administration is done at provincial and municipal level. ≈ Chamal  talk 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What you have done does give more of a feel as to what a district actually "does". I suppose the only real remaining question that springs to mind is who appoints the District Secretariat? Are they appointed by the central government, by the provinces or perhaps nominated by the municipalities? As for the notable attributes column, I feel that it may still be a bit too wide ranging in its potential content, but we'll see what other reviewers think. Boissière (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - Added the info. Do you have any suggestions about the notable attributes column? ≈ Chamal  talk 08:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I'm awaiting other reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All newspapers, magazines and journals should be italicized. You can do this easily by changing  to   in the reference templates.
 * Spell out UNESCO in the publishers.
 * Ref 16, there should be a space after the comma.
 * Ref 19, change  to   in the template.
 * Refs 5, 6, 35, 48, 52, 55, 58, 59 and the first general reference; add  to the template.
 * Ref 61, Reuters is not a publication and should not be italicized. Change "work" to "publisher" in the template. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All fixed I think I have fixed everything mentioned. ≈ Chamal  talk 06:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
 * I have a serious problem with the notable attributes column as it is so subjective and varying. One describes why it was significant in terms of historical features, one the agro. output Frankly I would just remove it.
 * Fixed: That's the second time concerns have been raised about this column, so I have removed it according to both suggestions. ≈ Chamal  talk 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we have a population density column? It would be informative, and easy to do.
 * Fixed: I didn't add this earlier because it would clutter up the page with the attributes column. ≈ Chamal  talk 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you link Population density in the table header? Also use Pop density km2 to mi2 to give us the unit as well as the conversion? So, for the first one you would use  Woody (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An established column? Reading the lead it seems they were all formed at different times or am I incorrect in my interpretation?
 * 21 formed in 1833 (as mentioned in lead), and four later. Do you think this should be added as a column (since most of it would read 1833), or shall I just mention the creation of the other four in the lead as well? ≈ Chamal  talk 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have worked this into the lead, it looks good. I do wonder though whether it should be in the table as well though. After all, the lead is meant to summarise and introduce the table and I think it would still be a useful thing to have in the table. Woody (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, a few concerns at the moment. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment My understanding is that population density should be calculated by dividing population by area yet some of the figures in the population density column are well off, for example Mullaitivu should be 77 people per square km but is listed as 50. Even more bizarrely Vavuniya and Mannar are both 81 yet Mannar has a larger population and smaller area than Vavuniya. It would be worth checking some other sources, if possible, to found which source/data is unreliable. No original research states you aren't forbidden from routine calculations so I'd rather see some simple math used on reliable data instead of quoting some which isn't for the sake of having a reference. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn... you are right. Looks like I've done this in too much of a hurry. Population and population density are taken from the government's department of census and statistics, so they would be correct (if we assume they are incorrect, there's no point keeping the article at all :)) So area must be the erroneous column, which is taken from statoids (which claims to have taken it from government websites). I used it because I couldn't find this information on government sites. I'll have a look again. ≈ Chamal  talk 01:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


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