Talk:Tibesti Mountains/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 17:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose standard is excellent, and the article complies with all the required sections of MoS. It's a little on the long side (WP:LENGTH puts it just shy of "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)"), but I don't think there's any need to consider a split. A few tiny notes: I probably wouldn't repeat "geopolitical situation" twice so close together in the lead. I'm not sure the distance and direction to the Cameroon line adds much to the "Location" section; it would be more clear to say that the mountains are halfway between Lake Chad and the Gulf of Sidra, rather than just the Mediterranean Sea in general. Near the end of "Topography", is Lava spine really the correct destination for the link on "volcanic spires"? That article makes it sound like a "lava spine" is something that forms as a volcano is actively erupting, whereas these features sound more like volcanic plugs exposed by subsequent erosion? In "Human settlement" it would be nice to add a date to the paragraph about Julius Maternus's expedition through the region (the linked article seems to indicate that it took place c. 90 CE?). In the first paragraph of the section "Tibesti War", in the phrase "forcing their withdrawal from the mountains" I can't tell which party is forcing which party's withdrawal. In "Climbing history", it currently reads "The first sporting climb was probably that of the peak and needle of Botoum, at 2,400 m (7,900 ft) and 2,400 m (7,900 ft), respectively"; these probably aren't meant to be the same number? It doesn't seem to me that the external links to "Information on climbing, with map" and "Information about the mountains, with images" add anything; the promised information doesn't particularly go beyond what's already in this article, and the map and images are small and poor. I also don't see any value added by the "Travel page with photos (in German)", coming immediately before a similar English-language account with far more art.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   There are citations throughout to reputable sources, though many are offline or paywalled; I'll have to AGF on those citations. The link to Beauvilain 1996 seems to be dead, as does the link to "Chad: Toubou and Daza: Nomads of the Sahara". In "Location" I don't see the claim that the Tibesti range is the "largest geologic area of the [Sahara]" supported in the cited document (though the document is very long, so I could be overlooking it). In "Flora" the final sentence of the first paragraph ("dense thickets of Tamarix aphylla and Salvadora persica") lacks a citation. Likewise, in "Chadian–Libyan conflict" the first paragraph ends with claims that cite no sources. "Wondermondo.com" doesn't seem like a reliable source with editorial oversight; there's got to be a better source for everything being cited from it. In "Conservation" where this article claims that "A protected area in the Tibesti range has been proposed", the cited source seems rather to indicate that it's the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences that has done the proposing, which seems irrelevant, since it isn't up to them; I find the text misleading, as it seems to mean that *Chad* has proposed a protected area. The first paragraph in "Culture" ends with two sentences not supported by any citation. All the other sources I can access appear to substantiate the claims in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is extremely thorough in covering all major aspects of the topic and doesn't wander into unrelated matters.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article maintains a suitably neutral tone, not e.g. exaggerating the importance of the topic or taking sides in historical conflicts described in the history section.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article has been quite stable since nomination, with only a few minor and technical edits over the past few months.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article is extremely well illustrated by highly relevant and suitable images. Almost all of the images have suitable PD or CC licenses. One has a licensing problem: File:Gustav Nachtigal 02.jpg has no United States PD tag, and I couldn't see any information about the source or artist (the source link on the Commons page is dead) to judge when the artist died. It'd be great if the nominator could investigate and establish the provenance.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a fantastic article, extremely thorough and well researched. There are some prose and clarity issues and a few bits of sourcing and licensing that need to be cleaned up, but the vast majority of it is already excellent. I'm putting this on hold, and looking forward to hearing from the nominator! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Bryanrutherford0:, thanks for all your effort on this review! I am not the nominator, but I did add the majority of the content to the article (many years ago). I believe I've addressed all your concerns, save for one: re the Cameroon Line, the sentence is putting the Tibesti in a volcanic geographic context, with the Cameroon Line and the Rift Valley being the nearest large volcanic features. That said, I'm not wed to the line.

Also note that I've added three new paragraphs to the article, two on the MDJT War and one on the gold rush. (It had annoyed me for years that the history just stopped in the mid-1980s... there was a whole other war!). I assume you might want to take a look at those?

I'm not sure how these article reviews work, but I suppose I too am looking forward to hearing from the nominator! Brycehughes (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fabulous work! I appreciate you responding so quickly and effectively. These changes indeed address all of my concerns, and the article now meets the GA standard. I hope you'll consider running this as a Featured Article candidate, as well! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A big thanks to Bryan Rutherford for reviewing the article for GA and to Brycehughes for addressing the concerns of the reviewer. I looked at the article yesterday after Bryce had made their first round of changes. I updated some GVP references and fixed a couple minor issues with Emmi Koussi but certainly Bryce deserves full credit for pushing it that final step to GA. Well done.
I'll take a look at the FA requirements and consider an FA nomination. My biggest concern about being the nominator is that there are quite a few non-English sources (primarily French) of which I'm not able to verify myself. So if the reviewer has some questions about the non-English sources, I would not be able to help with addressing those concerns. RedWolf (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)