Talk:Adriatic Sea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAdriatic Sea has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 27, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 9, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Adriatic Sea receives one third of freshwater flowing into the Mediterranean?
Current status: Good article

Flysch[edit]

Tomobe03 wrote: "There's nothing special about flysch on the Slovene coast - flysch is found virtually everywhere along the Adriatic and islands, slightly reword"[1] - I don't know where else does it occur, but if you have reliable sources, feel welcome to add a short paragraph about this, and also about alluvial plains, which do obviously not occur only in the Po Valley. Previously, there was not even a single link to flysch. Also, the reword made it appear like the Strunjan cliff is a karst phenomenon, as flysch was not mentioned, and the paragraph was discussing karst topography. From the geological point of view this is surely important. --Eleassar my talk 12:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flysch occurs along the entire eastern coast[2] Alluvial nature of the western coast and movement is also mentioned. "Vruljas" are mentioned: submarine groundwater discharges are just that - adding a Croatian name is not really helping on English wiki!
Please note that the article covers a relatively large area and summary style must be maintained in order to prevent this article becoming too long. I don't think the flysch remark is incorrect to make about the Slovene coast - it's simply not too significant for the area as a whole given the present mention about karstification.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Welcome to add the information about flysch to the article.
  2. Regarding the Croatian name, I think it actually does help, as it is a specific naming of the "cold springs in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea", and not of all SGDs, and also does not refer to the warm springs found in Slovenia.
  3. Besides the contrast between the warm and cold springs, the paragraph included also the information about the chemical composition, which is an important characteristic of SGDs in the Adriatic Sea, and is not common to all SGDs.
  4. Alluvial nature of the western coast was mentioned, but the alluvial nature of the eastern coast was not. --Eleassar my talk 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I propose to (1) add information that flysch is present throughout the eastern coast (or something along those lines) with a proper source; (2) research what "vrulja" exactly means in Croatian (cold, hot, regardless of temperature and other stuff) and add that to the SGD discussion. The thermal spring info is now there next to the SGDs, including its chemistry, precisely to contrast the two. Alluvial nature of the eastern coast is not emphasized because it is not prevalent or typical for the coast. Still, info on localized sedimentation is indeed there, specifically noting that Dragonja river contributes to that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To move a discussion from another talk page here too - in line with (2-above) a mention of localized alluvial plains may be added to the coast/karst/flysch sentence-or-two on the eastern coast. Mind you, karst in itself does not equal limestone, so I'd package the flysch and limestone together (noting both) as sedimentary rocks, how about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This would be ok. Another economic activity that should in my opinion be mentioned as it is inherently related to the sea is salt panning in the Adriatic. --Eleassar my talk 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought of that too, but I'm still trying to compile a list of sources on sea salt production in Italy (its Adriatic coast, that is) and actual output in terms of tonnes and/or euros thereof. I think the salt production is relatively minor economic activity there (compared to fishing, tourism, ports and oil/gas), but yes, that would probably be of some interest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be indeed. Did you know that in Antiquity "the Adriatic Sea, having a higher salinity due to its shallow depth, had more productive solar ponds compared with those of the Tyrrhenian Sea, much closer to Rome"? At least that's what History of salt says; see also Via Salaria. --Eleassar my talk 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Adriatic has lower average salinity than the Mediterranean, but maybe that had to do with increased evaporation in particularly shallow waters?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical tables[edit]

The time period should be explicitely stated (year/month/...) in the tables containing statistical data (overnight stays, transport volume etc.). I think data are available for the year 2010, but not yet for the year 2011. --Eleassar my talk 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be best achieved by putting the year number in brackets next to the source info in the note already found at the bottom of each table.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest choosing the same time period (the year 2010) to make the data comparable, and putting it in parentheses in the table heading. --Eleassar my talk 08:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that would be preferable - regardless of the year, but until such data is found the notes about the year will have to do - except in case of the ten largest cities, as censuses neatly coincide in 2011. Anyway I'll see if those can be found. What year do the Slovenian coastal municipalities' tourism data belong to? By the way, it's quite good to have the coast separate for Slovenia, since I imagine Slovenian accommodation facilities are far larger in the Alps and Ljubljana combined - on the other hand it would hardly be of any practical purpose to do a similar exercise for Montenegro since nearly all of its tourist facilities are in coastal region itself and the country is smaller than Veneto and Emilia-Romagna anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Slovenian data refer to 2010 (it may be verified in the refs). --Eleassar my talk 11:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indented coast[edit]

The Surić ref (page 7) specifically says that "The Eastern Adriatic (Croatian) coast is one of the most indented ones..." and since Croatian coast extends from the Gulf of Piran which is itself a part of the Gulf of Trieste to Prevlaka which is in turn at the entrance to the Bay of Kotor I don't think there's anything left uncovered by the reference. Why the fact tag?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the Croatian coast, but the problem is the source does not explain the topic in detail, and the most indented part of the Adriatic coast is the Bay of Kotor, belonging not to Croatia but to Montenegro. --Eleassar my talk 10:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Bay of Kotor should make a point about that... I don't see why should that source have to go in detail on indentation of the coast - the Adriatic Sea article should not itself go into great details on each particular bay or short stretch of coast per summary style. The edit summary removing a perfectly sourced sentence as WP:OR is quite odd to say the least. Did you find that problematic for any particular purpose? I would prefer to say that the coast from the Gulf of Trieste to the Bay of Kotor is (as sourced) indented rather than the Croatian coast is indented because the same coast was indented too when it was a part of other countries... --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, there are other such small bays (Lim, Mirna etc) which are far more intended according to coastal front/coast length than the Bay of Kotor.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The Croatian part of the eastern Adriatic coast is one of the most indented ones." is inherently biased. It would be also correct (but biased) to say "The Montenegrin part of the eastern Adriatic coast is one of the most indented ones". It would be most neutral to say that "the eastern Adriatic coast is one of the most indented ones".
The indentness of the Bay of Kotor deserves mention in the article, because it is unique in the entire Mediterranean,[3] and therefore a unique characteristic of the Adriatic Sea. As for other indented areas, a source for the claim that they're more indented than the Bay of Kotor would be certainly welcome. --Eleassar my talk 11:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both would be biased if unsupported by reliable sources. OTOH if supported, there would be no bias. If a Russian writes that the Russia is the largest country in the world, that's statement of fact (hopefully supported by a RS). If there's a source claiming that the Bay of Kotor is the most indented coastal feature in the Adriatic it's quite welcome addition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is ok now. --Eleassar my talk 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian and Croatian protection zones[edit]

Overlapping of the two declared zones is directly supported by a cited source as: "In October 2005 Slovenia proclaimed its own protected ecological and continental shelf zone, which included international waterscorridor created by the Račan – Drnovšek agreement. In 2006 Slovenia also proclaimed a Decision on fishery zones, which established three zones (A, B, C). One of them (zone B) embraced part of the sea which Croatia considers as constituent part of its territorial sea, while another one (zone C) embraced sea Croatia claimed by its ZERP..." - ZERP being Croatia's protected zone, I don't see anything doubtful regarding the statement that the two zones partially overlap.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Eleassar my talk 15:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia - Bosnia and Herzegovina dispute[edit]

There is also a cited source directly supporting that there are some "remaining" issues in this field. Specifically, the Klemenčić/Topalović article says that "Despite the fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia concluded a boundary treaty in 1999 which included the delimitation of their maritime boundary, it appears that some problems related to this boundary remain." - so I'd say the fact tag was not justified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What bothered me was the past tense: remained. It seems you have fixed it. --Eleassar my talk 15:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications[edit]

  • Apulian/Adriatic Microplate movement contributed to Alpine orogeny, as well as related movements of African and Eurasian plates.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops - the coast lengths are all in kilometres.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of islands greatly varies from one country to another - Even though Croatia alone has 1,200+ islands/islets, Italy has relatively few Adriatic Sea islands outside Venetian lagoon. (There are 117 of them in the lagoon). Number of islands in the remaining countries is very low - I'd say less than 10 combined.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put it down as over 1300 (just Croatia + Italy together would be more than that)
  • Krk and Cres islands appear to be the same to the second decimal point when their size is expressed in square kilometers. Not only is that weird, but those islands are located one next to the other just to add to the mystery.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just thought of this: Cres and adjacent island of Lošinj were a single island in classical antiquity - they are separated by a (as Frommer source says) "48 m (30 ft) [sic] wide" canal. The canal was probably dug by Illyrians or Romans in the 1st century AD separating the island previously called Apsyrtides (in Greek) in two. The canal is spanned by a bascule bridge in town of Osor. (Sources: [4], [5]) --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the width given by Frommer source seems dubious to me: the metres and feet do not match, the canal does not appear to be that wide (see image of the canal in the Osor article), and Port of Osor ordinance specifies that "the navigable canal is 110 m (360 ft) long and 12 m (39 ft) wide". I suppose one specifies an average and the other minimum width or something like that and the port website width is similar to what the Frommer source specifies in feet, so I'm inclined to accept the port site as authoritative on the issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be in there someplace, perhaps as 9.1 to 11.9 metres (30 to 39 ft)? I don't see it in the articles on the two islands in question. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added - not specifying width of the canal though, except saying it is navigable and narrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not seen the "Stefano Fracon" ref before - I'll check that out. I assume that year=29 is meant to be volume=29 - but I'll see about that yet.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 9 degrees Celsius temperature is not seen in any time but winter, yes.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jugo" means sirocco in Croatian, Montengrin and Slovene languages (the name literally means "southern").--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ecosystems related to karst" generally refer to ecosystems found in specific morphological features of karst terrain. Those include subterranean ecosystems containing rare species - karst regions of Croatia contain more than 8,000 caves largely created by action of water filtering through karst and transporting nutrients, allowing subterranean ecosystems to survive in restricted ecological limits, specific types of shrubland and meadows as well as karst rivers supporting rare or even endemic fish (some of them endemic to single rivers). Furthermore there are karst polje moors depending on unique hydrology and supporting many locally rare species of vegetation. Submarine karst also supports marine communities considered endangered in the Mediterranean and represents base for submarine meadows providing food and shelter to various species (including those economically important ones). Finally, the submarine karst formations include submarine freshwater springs and rias providing specific types of habitats to marine life.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The provisions of the Treaty of London referred to in the "From ironclads to dreadnoughts" refer to territorial expansion of Italy on the eastern coast of Adriatic.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes: Geography of Croatia article?[edit]

Should the Geography of Croatia article include something about earthquakes and/or tsunamis? Allens (talk | contribs) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't have any idea. Looking at the only similar FA - Geography of Ireland (and at least one tsunami is thought to have occurred in the area) and the two similar GAs - Geography of South Dakota and Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador - there's not a word about any of the two.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While there may have been earthquakes in/near those three, they definitely aren't known for it. How frequent are noticeable earthquakes in Croatia? Allens (talk | contribs) 19:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are about a thousand tremors registered in Croatia each year, but by far most of those are not felt by humans, and are recorded by seismographs only due to their low strength. A strong earthquake is observed in Croatia, on average, after "several tens of years" (literal translation from the newspaper) and very strong earthquakes in periods spanning several hundreds of years. The most significant earthquake in present-day territory of Croatia was 1667 Dubrovnik earthquake causing 3,000 deaths and major destruction, followed by 1880 Zagreb earthquake which caused few casualties, but also major damage to structures (including destruction of Zagreb Cathedral. (source)--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If earthquakes that are perceptible happen even as frequently as once a year, I'd personally say that's something to mention - perhaps in the Dinaric Alps section? In that case, most detail can be left to the Dinaric Alps article. Allens (talk | contribs) 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively to the Dinaric Alps section, the Adriatic Sea article already has some mention of increased seismic activity, so a one-sentence mention of earthquakes in the Adriatic Sea section may be in order - or even both in the Adriatic Sea and Dinaric Alps sections? The second could be something like "As with the area near the Adriatic Sea, mild earthquakes are not uncommon in the area of the Dinaric Alps", with a citation to your source. Allens (talk | contribs) 23:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Adriatic coast south of Split and between Senj and Rijeka is most earthquake prone section of the country - see a seismicity map in the above source. The Dinaric Alps are actually the least seismic part of the country (except for the mountains skirting coast as in Rijeka or Makarska hinterland).--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Sounds/looks like just one sentence in the Adriatic Sea section will do the job. How about "Earthquakes are frequent in the area around the Adriatic Sea, although most are too faint to be felt." with the ref being, as an initial guess: Crnčević, Lydia (2010). "POTRESNA KARTA HRVATSKE Zemljotresi pogađaju jug Dalmacije oko Uskrsa". Slobodna Dalmacija. Retrieved 23 March 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
Allens (talk | contribs) 00:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so (touched up the title of the ref if you don't mind) except many earthquakes are felt by people, but those are sufficiently weak to cause no (or next to none) destruction. As far as their frequency is concerned, the above source news article contained links to seven reports carried by the newspaper between August 2011 and January 2012 on seven different earthquakes felt in (not necessarily with an epicenter in) Croatia. Two of them were felt in area of Rijeka, one in Slavonski Brod area and all others in Dalmatia (one near Zadar and three near Dubrovnik). Six measured 3 or 4 on Mercalli intensity scale which means no damage, and one measured 5 on the Mercalli intensity scale meaning possible broken window glasses or dishes or similar objects (no damage to structures). On the balance, this appears to account for a lot of earthquakes which may be felt, but nearly all of them cause no damage or negligible damage - with destructive/violent earthquakes occurring on 200-years scale and strong earthquakes on a 20-years scale (or so). Still I believe that the sentence would still be true since there's simply more earthquakes that are observed by seismographs than by people - but that's quite a challenge to reference. (sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12])--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem on the title - it was pretty much direct from Google Translate except for the colon. Here's a revision: "Earthquakes are frequent in the area around the Adriatic Sea, although most are too faint to be felt; an earthquake doing significant damage happens every few decades, with major earthquakes every few centuries." with the ref being: Crnčević, Lidija (7 March 2010). "POTRESNA KARTA HRVATSKE Zemljotresi pogađaju jug Dalmacije oko Uskrsa". Slobodna Dalmacija. Retrieved 23 March 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
Look about ready to go in? Allens (talk | contribs) 03:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Just changed the author's first name per article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; done! Allens (talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maps showing territorial changes? Might be something for later...[edit]

I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to have in some maps showing the various territorial changes over time - perhaps as a gallery using {{Gallery}}? Currently, it gets hard to keep track of the locations of all the changes... This might be something for later - e.g., as an improvement prior to going for FA status. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - there's so many changes that such a map would surely be interesting (not to mention useful). I'll look into that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarifications[edit]

  • Torre del Cerrano is located in the Middle Adriatic, just to the north of Pescara ([13]). The "in northern Adriatic" in the tagged sentence refers to the Gulf of Trieste.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bathymetry[edit]

I'm wondering if the Commons image File:Adriatic_Sea_02.PNG might be of use in this section. Admittedly, it'd be better if it, say, changed colors for different depths. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an image there would be of use. The one you proposed might be fine - other than the fact that it carries very little information about the depth. There's also File:Adriatic Seafloor.jpg which is likewise fairly low on information. Were you thinking about something like the NOAA chart?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually more thinking about something like the image at http://clasticdetritus.com/2009/09/06/sea-floor-sunday-54-bathymetry-of-the-adriatic-sea/ - maybe not with the perspective drawing with the exaggerated depth, but at least something with different colors for different depths (and ideally a legend of color vs depth). (That one is unfortunately unavailable - even the original site doesn't seem to have it anymore.) The NOAA chart is too detailed and hard to understand on a quick look. Allens (talk | contribs) 14:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's this map with less details in it, but I'm not sure about its licensing - if that's the desired level of detail, I'll try to draw a vector map based on that one if nothing else turns up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That one looks good to me - no "explosives disposal areas" and other extraneous material the NOAA chart had; good job! Allens (talk | contribs) 16:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one also seems to be "more balanced" for the purpose - but as I said, I'm not sure about licensing so I'll draw one based on that one - with a color key.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - but the environmental issues will have to wait until tomorrow though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job - understand on environmental! Allens (talk | contribs) 21:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental situation[edit]

I was thinking that it would probably make sense to add a general discussion of the environmental conditions and problems of the Adriatic Sea to the article. In general, I see a lack of the discussion of this aspect. An often quoted albeit outdated source is Bombace, Giovanni. 1993. "Ecological and Fishing Features of the Adriatic Sea," in Kenneth Sherman, et al. (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993) pp. 119-136. ISBN: 087168506X.[14] --Eleassar my talk 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://asp.rec.org/overview.html and http://books.google.com/books?id=2L0V6DUOz8AC&lpg=PA205&dq=Adriatic%20environment&pg=PA205#v=onepage&q=Adriatic%20environment&f=false may be sources of leads to further info, as may a google search for '"Adriatic euroregion" environment'. The Adriatic Euroregion article unfortunately has a dead link for the official website. Allens (talk | contribs) 14:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also located a site with some links to mostly-Croatian published material on the subject - http://www.fni.no/projects/pssa_adriatic.html. Allens (talk | contribs) 14:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to come up with a suitable paragraph or two by the evening.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close to being done with copyedit[edit]

Looks like I'm pretty close to being done with the copyedit. About all that remains is:

  • Going over the paragraph or so that Tomobe03 is planning on writing regarding the Adriatic's environment; and
  • Where would it go? I mean it's ready, but I can't figure what section would that belong to, if any.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A possible place found... not sure though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I see any other logical location, other than maybe under "Coastal management", and talking about pollution in the light of just having been discussing ecological hotspots makes sense. I suppose it could be done as a separate section right after Flora and Fauna. What do the ocean/sea FAs do, if there are any? Allens (talk | contribs) 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the assessment table of the WP Oceans if the Adriatic Sea passes GA review, it will be the first "sea" article (oceans included) to do so. In a word - there's no precedent to go by. North Sea article is currently a B-class article and there's no separate section or subsection on pollution. Apparently whatever is done here may become a standard later. :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification to the tag in this section - what is meant is that ships transporting cargo to the ports in the Adriatic and leaving empty (such as tankers) present no hazard in terms of ballast water issue simply because they take water for their ballast in the Adriatic itself - as opposed to say an empty tanker arriving to a hypothetical export oil terminal and taking in crude while discharging ballast water taken up elsewhere.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - clarification put into the section. Allens (talk | contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One needed clarification/justification in the body that I just spotted in the lead.

Looks good otherwise! Allens (talk | contribs) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The relative growth was indeed largely confined to tourist industry sector - perhaps the sentence should be best rephrased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Continental characteristics" mean to represent the fact that the sea is shallow and largely enclosed by land.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, explained. Allens (talk | contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm about done. If there are significant additions to the text in the article, let me know and I'll do any needed copyediting on them. For now, I'm declaring it done for purposes of the request list, the GOCE's current backlog drive, etc. Allens (talk | contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - your copyedit was as thorough and as constructive as before! Great work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite welcome, and thank you for your praise - good to work with you again! Allens (talk | contribs) 22:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced text[edit]

The following text was removed from the article as unsourced. Please provide reliable sources for the text below and I'll be happy to restore it to the article.

(from History section)

The Middle Ages can be clearly distinguished on the basis of the history around the Adriatic Sea: The Middle Ages began shortly after the end of the Roman Empire, when the Archangel Michael cult began in Monte Sant'Angelo at around 490[1][2] which found its climax between 1169 and 1177 when Bon/Bonumir/Benesmiro de Siponto the justiciarius of Monte Sant'Angelo was sent as the Pope's notifier to Šibenik[3][4] during the dispute between Pope Alexander III and Emperor Frederic Barbarossa[5]. He is also associated with a legend about a great treasure of the Knights Templars[6][7][8] who were dominating great parts of the Middle Ages after they got with their letters of credit, introduced around 1150[9], their first property in Croatia and Hungary (near Miholjanec) in 1160[10]. Letters of credit became incomparable important at sea.[11] Šibenik was also called Krešimir's city[12], who had reffered to the Adriatic Sea as Mare Nostrum Dalmaticum ("Our Dalmatian Sea")[13], but its port was destroyed in the War of Chioggia in 1378[14] after which the financial compensation was negotiated until 1412 at the end of the Middle Ages when it became the seat of the main customs office, which is exactly on the orthodromic distance line between the church in Miholjanec and the Amalfi Cathedral[15], it also became the seat of the salt consumers office with a monopoly on the salt trade in Chioggia and on the whole Adriatic Sea[16]. The Amalfian Laws were for centuries the international mercantile code at sea.[17]

The Renaissance around the Adriatic Sea begun with the movement to reintegrate Greek literary, historical, oratorical and theological texts back into the Western European culture which is usually associated with Manuel Chrysoloras whose students were among the first Renaissance Humanists.

(end)

Please just add sourcing here if available. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

[Ottoman Empire's expansion that reached Adriatic shores in present-day Albania]
but the reaction of Cristoforo Moro was hesitant, because he had to take into account the economic interests of Venice, and so the expansion was continuing and reached
[Montenegro]

This sentence should be dated better if we want to mention Moro in it, because there's a gap between the description of the Byzantium's destruction in 1453 and Moro's installment in 1462. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text beginning with "The Middle Ages can be clearly distinguished..." and ending in "... and Emperor Frederic Barbarossa." IMHO would be far better off in Middle Ages than in this article - there's no need to define the term per Wikipedia:Summary style.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miholjanec has absolutely nothing to do with Adriatic Sea - the info is interesting though - perhaps a better suited article would benefit from that information. How about History of Croatia, Middle Ages or something else in addition?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info on Amalfian Laws and general intro of Renaissance seem too vague and generalized to warrant inclusion in this particular article. Is there any particularity regarding the Amalfian Laws that was specific to the Adriatic? Defining Renaissance should be done in Renaissance article per summary style.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Adriatic Sea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot questions below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the table headed Length in kilometres of Adriatic coastlines, why not just have "0" for the nations which have zero islands, rather than "N/A" which you then have to explain....
You're right, that is a far better solution.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
table header labelled Most populous urban areas on the Adriatic's coast - looks odd to me, I'd go with "Most populous urban areas on the Adriatic coast" (i.e. adjectival rather than possessive) - more natural flow
Yes, that's odd.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Adriatic Sea is a unique part of the Mediterranean... - hmmm, everywhere is unique. The adjective doesn't give me any idea why it is special - more exacting descriptors needed here.
The unique nature of the Adriatic gives rise to an abundance of endemic flora and fauna. - and again, what uniqueness
That's right. I expanded that paragraph to include a brief explanation what makes it "unique" in terms of marine environment.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah ok, much better. Ok continuing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
link delta at first instance.
Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • placeholder - I've read to Age of sail - prose is good. Not finding much to copyedit at all! nice work....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Corpus separatum formed in 1779 and containing the city of Fiume (modern Rijeka) directly subjected to the Kingdom of Hungary was confirmed and the rest was part of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, which in turn was also in the Transleithanian part of the dual monarchy - this sentence is confusing and should be broken up.
I've attempted a copyedit on this; am now going to bed... Allens (talk | contribs) 04:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit better but probably could be tweaked more - especially if FA is the goal (which it should be as this is shaping up very nicely) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've again tried copyediting this, hopefully without changing the meaning (a look at corpus separatum (Fiume) helped). Allens (talk | contribs) 21:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Adriatic coastline controlled by the Ottoman Empire shrunk in 1878 - sounds odd (like the coastline itself shrunk!) - try "The Adriatic coastline under the rule of/that was controlled by the Ottoman Empire shrunk in 1878" or somesuch.
Rephrased a bit, hopefully clarifying the sentence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottoman Empire was completely removed from the Adriatic.. - I know what is meant but the wording is odd, how about "The Ottoman Empire lost all access to the Adriatic" or something similar.
Rephrased slightly as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The World War I Adriatic Campaign was largely limited to blockade attempts by the Allies and the Central Powers' attempts to break the blockade - two "blockade"s in the one sentence....can we change one?
Rephrased a bit to remove one "blockade".--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Fishing section has a lonely bit at the top of the section which doesn't neatly append onto any of the three following paras. Given global issues with depletion of fishing stocks, here might be a good place to add any material on fish species who have been (or are likely to be) fished out and steps taken to conserve them.
Good idea, I'll add a bit along that lines (presumably today).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A brief description of the issue is now in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the See also section is particularly useful.
Me neither. It's there mainly to hold portal boxes and I wouldn't mind removing the section completely. It's just that I don't know if the boxes should be there or not.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, nice easy-to-read article - prose is busy in places but this reflects the busyness of the nations and entities existing around the Adriatic. Will spot check soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checking on copyright status, the origin of the base map and info for File:Adriatic Sea map.png would be good to add, as would the source of the info which provides the basis for File:Adriatic jadran.png, File:Adriatic Sea Bathymetry.svg and File:Adriatic Plate.jpg. Be good to sort this out as the images in the article are very good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what needs to be done, could you clarify a bit please? Should additional info be added in the Commons or in the article itself (in map caption or in some sort of markup)? Should the additional information provide sourcing for the map data or something else or something in addition?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, sorry, I didn't make that quite clear. Maps require (a) where the information came from which gave the information on a map (i.e. the distribution of a bird will have come from a page of a reference book, so that needs to be sourced and added), and (b) if some derivatory map, then the template's origin needs to be noted. This should be done on the commons page, which is transcluded on the enwiki info page anyway. See File:Banksia marginata map.png as an example. Folks have been checking on this at FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not quite sure how to do that on the Commons. Could you please point me to any image where I could see how to add the information or add that information for the bathymetry map yourself, so that I could do the same for the others? Sourcing for that map is as follows:
PS: I added the above info to Commons - could you please take a quick look to see if that's the proper way to do it? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found the sourcing information for two of the images and added those to the Commons, while there was no obvious way to do the same for the remaining two - therefore I changed those for similar images where the information is available.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, File:Adriatic Sea Geographic Map.jpg is clearly worse than File:Adriatic Sea map.png, and there's nothing actually wrong with the latter. Yes, it's not explained in detail - because it contains no copyrightable information that has to be explained - the basic topographical and political boundaries of territories are not copyrightable, nor are common toponyms like sea, gulf and city names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facts aren't copyrightable in the first place - but an expression of facts, or a compilation of them in many cases, is copyrightable. Moreover, this isn't just a question of copyright, but of citing sources - avoiding plagiarism, saying who's saying something about boundaries (e.g., Croatia/Slovenia; Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Cite Your Sources notes this), etc. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understood this as a matter of sourcing - who says that say, Adriatic/Apulian Microplate boundaries are there where they are depicted to be - and a matter of not using copyrighted material. For the former, I believe data is now in, and as far as the latter is concerned I cannot determine where does the infobox map come from. I also think this particular map is better than the geographic map taken from CIA Europe reference map, but I simply cannot determine where it comes from. If that is no problem, I'm happy to keep this particular map in. If it comes down to sourcing of names of geographic features named on the map, NOAA chart in the external links contains all those and may be cited at the Commons as sourcing for the geographic names as:
  • Agree about which is the better-looking map. Not a deal-breaker for GA anyway. I figure there must be a template on commons somewhere....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The compilation was uploaded as an own work in May 2005. I don't see any reason to doubt User:NormanEinstein - it certainly looks like a map that can be relatively easily hand-drawn. I also don't see any hint of plagiarism there - do you? None of the boundaries on that map are in any sort of dispute; the sea borders aren't drawn, and Kosovo is far away and irrelevant to the topic (and could easily be completely excluded together with Serbia if anyone thinks it's an issue). IOW, let's not make an issue out of nothing. If someone thinks the map has an actual problem, please don't beat around the bush and simply point it out. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the map is not a GA issue, I propose to redraw the map at some point between GA and FA reviews, just to be on the safe side - making it look pretty much just like this one here, plus sourcing - assuming that the map source is an FAR issue. How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a safe option. Sorry, I've been sidetracked...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem... --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecking references - I don't think footnote 29 references " Finally, Venice is increasingly vulnerable to flooding due to coastal area soil subsidence" - soil subsidence and increasing rtisk aren't in that source. If they're both in the other then the ref probably should be removed, unless you want to add the specific flooding dates and levels. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was in nr.28, but I found a better one (in English) and substituted #28 with it. Ref 29 needed to be moved forward few sentences to its correct position (now #25, making old #28 new #29).--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aah ok. I'll check a couple more before passing this, but we're nearly there.Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
refs 161 and 175 (and another couple) look ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: nice work - well on target for a crack at FAC. Can't see any outstanding prose or comprehensiveness problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, page 33, Ferdinand Gregorovius, Annie Hamilton, Cambridge University Press, 2010. ISBN 9781108015011
  2. ^ Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, page 980, André Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Michael Lapidge, Routledge, 2000. ISBN 9781579582821
  3. ^ Opera omnia, id est epistolae et privilegia, Volume 200 of Patrologiae cursus completus / Patrologia Latina, DDDXXIII, page 524, Alexander (Papa, III.), Jacques Paul Migne, Migne, 1855.
  4. ^ Regesto di S. Leonardo di Siponto: pubblicato dall'Istituto storico italiano, Volume 10 of Regesta chartarum Italiae, page 56, San Leonardo si Siponto (Monastery), Fortunato Camobreco, E. Loescher (W. Regenberg), 1913.
  5. ^ A history of the papacy from the great schism to the sack of Rome, page 21, Mandell Creighton, AMS Press, 1969.
  6. ^ Les cases de Templers y Hospitalers en Catalunya; aplech de noves y documents històrichs (1910), Miret y Sans, Joaquín, Subject: Templars in Catalonia; Knights of Malta in Catalonia, Publisher: Barcelona Impr. de la Casa Provincial de Caritat
  7. ^ Denkschriften, der kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 49. Band, Wien 1904.
  8. ^ Biblioteca Provinciale di Foggia, Monumenta edita ac illustrata 703.-1130. Archivio di Stato di Napoli
  9. ^ The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction, page 291, Mark Dice, 2009. ISBN 9780967346656
  10. ^ The Crusades and the Military Orders, page 246, Zsolt Hunyadi, József Laszlovszky, Central European University. Dept. of Medieval Studies, ISBN 9789639241428
  11. ^ A treatise of the law relative to merchant ships and seamen, page 120, Charles Abbott (Baron Tenterden), Brooke and Clarke, London 1804.
  12. ^ Culture and Customs of Croatia, page 9, Marilyn Cvitanic, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, California 2011, ISBN 9780313351174
  13. ^ Croatia in the early middle ages: a cultural survey, page 175, Ivo Supičić, Philip Wilson, 1999. ISBN 9780856674990
  14. ^ The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 9, page 469, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edition 15, 2003, ISBN 9780852299616
  15. ^ orthodromic distance line between Miholjanec and Amalfi on www.distancefromto.net
  16. ^ Studi veneziani, Volumes 15-16, page 177, Istituto Venezia e l'oriente, Istituto di storia della società e dello Stato veneziano, Giardini., 1989.
  17. ^ The Encyclopaedia Britannica, or Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature, Eight Edition: A - Ana, Volume 2, page 647, Black, Edinburgh 1853.

Non-languages[edit]

Croatian is a "standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian language". Try pushing your fake political language over there, see how long it takes before you get buried in sources. The same of course is also valid for Serbian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian. These are varieties of Serbo-Croatian. And while it may be ok to list them as such on articles like, say, Croatia, on articles like this, where more than one apply, - I'll eat my keyboard before I see the language we speak being ridiculed for the sake of national pride, or to be more accurate - hatred of other nations. Jimbo himself said he was opposed to all this and actually talked about forcefully merging the separate language Wikis. Though the complete dysfunction of the Croatian Wikipedia may have had something to do with that as well. So please take this sort of stuff over to that pathetic fantasy world. -- Director (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this speech was prompted by my message on Direktor's talk page:

I expect you to revert your edit removing Croatian language name from the Adriatic Sea along with an apology for unwarranted ad hominem attack you made in edit summary of this edit. Croatian language is not "nationalist nonsense" as you say - implying I'm a nationalist speaking nonsense - but an official language of both Croatia and European Union. This slur is nothing but abuse.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I will redact the ad hominem, but I will not revert myself to re-introduce nonsense. What I will revert is you restoring those ridiculous four entries for the same language, based on an invalid, defeated reasoning shown time and time again to be supported by a tiny minority of linguists (Croatian linguists, almost to a man). And if you believe Croatian is not just "a variant of Serbo-Croatian", you are welcome to first push that POV on the appropriate articles, not there on the Adriatic Sea article where you can try to pretend there is no consensus on the issue. And yes - you're the one POV-pushing here.
I'm terribly sorry you disagree with the scholarly consensus on the issue of what exactly Croatian is, but I'm afraid you're probably going to have to come to terms with it (at least while outside the parallel universe covered by hrWiki). -- Director (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the redacted ad hominem appears to be further elaborated here implying that I somehow hate other nations, albeit disguised as a seemingly undirected speech. I might be wrong on this but then Direktor's speech seems to indicate that they are convinced everyone not holding the same opinion as theirs hates other nations. Their "sorry" seems a bit hollow.

Direktor talks of a consensus but they appear to be using an Argumentum ad Jimbonem saying in vague terms [Jimbo] was opposed to all this to fork ideas presented in a wikipedia article thus violating WP:CIRCULAR. I'm also puzzled by "scholarly consensus" forced down community's throat as well. WP:COMMONNAME says "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." explicitly invalidating any argument about an actual or perceived "scholarly consensus". Right now, there are 18,600 Google books search results containing phrase "Serbo Croatian language" and 13,000 results containing phrase "Serbo Croat language", contrasted by 19,700 results containing phrase "Serbian language" and 21,300 results containing phrase "Croatian language" while simultaneously excluding phrase "Serbo Croatian language", making a roughly 4 to 3 preference against "Serbo Croat(ian) language" being a WP:COMMONNAME in English language books. (All four searches exclude results linked to Wikipedia and Books LLC to avoid mirroring wiki per WP:CIRCULAR.) This does not amount to warranting removal of Serbo-Croatian article - it should be kept and edited as is Czechoslovak language - but the argument does indicate that the consensus Direktor speaks about is a bit of a fact picking in violation of WP:CHERRY.

This fact picking approach is beautifully reflected in the fake political language phrase used here: The choice of words appears to give more than a slight hint of bias, especially after giving a speech on a "scholarly consensus". Indeed, the bias is necessary here to go fact picking. All language splits and mergers are ultimately traced to political decisions as evident in former Czechoslovakia, former Danish realms and, yes former Yugoslavia. To claim language matters can be decided by this linguist or that only is naive as attested by Académie française efforts in terms of Anglicisms and EU approach to Czech vs Slovakian and Croatian vs Serbian.

For an editor who consciously elects to fact pick and misquote while shouting out their bias to summarily label others as haters of other nations is beyond any measure of civility. Such remarks should have no place at wiki because such editors are clearly abusing their privilege to edit as well as their fellow editors.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. Please take your views on the subject and attempt to alter the consensus on the Croatian language article, or the Serbo-Croatian article. Do not use this talkpage as a proxy. Inserting four entries for the same name in the same language is absurd. About as absurd as getting confused over which thread came first, with the time and date available on hand. -- Director (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the adriatic sea doesnt contain 1,300 islands?[edit]

after a good look at the specific location of the adriatic sea, and the islands in it, I am pretty sure that it doesnt have 1.3k+ islands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.100.146 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated map[edit]

The map on the main part kf the article its pre 2008. Please update it RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adriatic_Sea&oldid=1195130455"