Talk:Twyfelfontein/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've signed up for this review. Should have some comments up in a few days. Sasata (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks a lot for your time and effort. --Pgallert (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1st pass comments:

• "The area was uninhabited by Europeans until after World War II, when a severe drought caused white Afrikaans speaking farmers (Boers) to move in. The farm was later procured by the apartheid government …" Perhaps make it explicit that the farmers converted some of the area to farmland (if that's what they did)
  • No, not really. Farming in Namibia is placing lifestock in the area and preventing it from dying of thirst. There is no production of crops of any sort in this semi-arid area.
• dab to rock art
  • Rock art is an article on its own, even though it starts with a disambig section. Or did I misunderstand you, where is the dab link?
    • Ah, I had only hovered over the link and thought it was a dab page. Sasata (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• is it possible to cite the publication by Maack where he reports his findings of the rock engravings?
  • I have the title and details of this book Scherz' book corrected: 11:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC) but I do not have the book itself. Should I put that in? Maack did not publish a book on this, he only noted it in his travel diary. The book where these notes are documented is the site description of ER Scherz; I have included the bibliographical details in the "References" section but I cannot get hold of the book.
• what source gives the translation of "ǀUi-ǁAis" as jumping waterhole? Another source claims it translates to "surrounded by rocks"
  • The UNESCO gives that translation, I have put it into the article text to make it explicit (the ref covers the entire paragraph). I did find many more different translations of ǀUi-ǁAis but thought the UNESCO report is the best source, compared to tourism books.
• this last source also says the site is at the head of the Aba Huab Valley, not mentioned in the article
  • Inserted. However, the valley's name is just "Huab", not "Aba Huab". My knowledge of Damara is really poor but "aba" means on top of or on the back of, like in carrying a child on the back. "Aba Huab" is the name of the camp site not far away -- and the camp site is, of course, on top of the valley slope, not in the valley itself.
  • Errors like these are the reason why I would prefer to keep travel books out of this article, if possible. They are almost always compilations of other sources, and they sometimes mix site information with the promotion of tourist facilities.
• I think the article would benefit from some more description on the various paintings. For example, googling around I learned that many of the animals depicted are no longer found in the area. One of the engravings is of a sea lion. Any scholarly interpretations that could be used as sources?
  • I have put a small paragraph in, outlining the occurrence of flamingos and a sea lion. The only really scientific treatise I have found puts the seal, as described by Scherz, in quotes and attaches two question marks to it: [1]. The word "flamingo" does not occur at all in his report: [2]. Do you think it is sufficient like this?
• should be mentioned that the site didn't receive formal protection until 1987 from the Ministry of Environment and Tournism
  • I'm not entirely sure what "no formal protection" means in this context -- it was a national monument since 1952, that is formal protection. There was nobody really guarding this area, that's how the vandalism could occur. I have added this information
• discuss damage by vandals?
  •  Done 11:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Paragraph inserted.
• is there a picture of the site that could be used (in addition to the rock engravings themselves)
  • Yes, that is available. Will see how it fits in.  Done 11:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• how was the age of the rock art estimated? (radiocarbon dating of the paints used, see here)
  • That is a very difficult question, as only a few objects have been dated exactly. There are also not many sources -- the one you found and this one. From what I take from this introduction, the dating was mainly done by estimation of the archaeological remains. I fear I get into the area of WP:OR if I try to explain exactly how the site was dated. Could this be left out?
    • I'll do some digging around and see if I can find anything else about this that could be added. Will get back to you soon. Sasata (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata, sorry for answering only now, I had watched the wrong page. I'll get to address your other points as soon as I can but will be on business travel most of next week. --Pgallert (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: I think I have addressed most of your preliminary concerns. If it is not sufficient, please let me know. --Pgallert (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent additions! Some more comments:

• "A modern archaeological survey questions these descriptions of Scherz' initial investigation." Any more details about this? When was it, who was the team led by, did they publish anything? Anything that might be used to expand the short archaeology section?
  • Hmm, the ref at the end of that sentence points to the voluminous site report by Sven Ouzman. However, as pointed out above, this report does not really elaborate on why the seal was put in quotes and tagged with question marks. I'll try to skim the site report for more details to produce at least one or two more sentences about the archaeology. --Pgallert (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I added that pottery was also found at the site. This paper (JSTOR 3886437 mentions that the remains of a human child were also found in the 1950s, and speculated to be of "Hottentot affinities". Sasata (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Added additional information and expanded the archaeology section. The pottery finds had to be put into perspective as there is not sufficient evidence that it belongs to the creators of the rock art.  Done 16:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• "As some of the remains of site visitors are older than 100 years they must, according to heritage legislation, be regarded artefacts in their own right, and described and catalogued, even if they are removed." I'm unclear about this statement: by "remains of site visitors" do you mean skeletons of tourists past? Stuff left behind of people who visited before 1910 (100 years ago)? Or the graffiti of vandals are considered artefacts (although presumably, they would be less than 100 years old)?
  • Lol, what the study referred to is the graffiti on site to be considered artefacts, although thinking about it, it should be really unlikely to have had visitors roam the area before 1910. I have just removed the unclear phrase, it didn't add much value anyway.  Done 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• is the Namibian National Heritage Act worthy of a redlink?
  • Good idea.  Done 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sasata (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In my estimation, the article meets GA criteria, and I will promote now. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! Sasata (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Article has appropriate citations, and all are to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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

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

   All images have appropriate free-use licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Thanks, Sasata for the work spent on this. I have one formal point that I think I should tell: While you promoted the article to GA I was busy with a very complicated edit converting the Ouzman reference to Harvard style and expanding the archaeology section. In order not to lose this jigsaw-type of edit, I basically reverted your changes and re-inserted them afterwards. Hope this is fine with you. --Pgallert (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)