Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tibesti Mountains/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2021 [1].

Tibesti Mountains edit

Nominator(s): Brycehughes (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an large, relatively unexplored, volcanic mountain range in middle of the Sahara desert. It possesses a harsh climate, yet supports a variety of desert flora and fauna. It is populated by the Toubou people, who have a unique culture and an independent spirit. This, along with its geographic position straddling the border between Chad and Libya, has engendered a volatile history. The Tibesti range is noted for its active volcanic landscape, its rock and parietal art, and its extreme geographic and cultural isolation. Brycehughes (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta edit

I tend to agree with Buidhe about the length of the Flora and fauna section. I appreciate that it's there (it's usually the first section I look at in articles like these), but at the same time it's quite long, somewhat listy, and at the same time quite incomplete – no mention, for example, of lichens and very little of bryophytes. How do you feel about spinning off an article Flora and fauna of the Tibesti Mountains? Esculenta (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that section wasn't good. In fact, some of the sourcing in the fauna subsection was off. Back when I wrote it (like 2013), I'm guessing I wrongly used the WWF source as a proxy for the other sources listed in the WWF document. Anyway, I trimmed up both sections and fixed the sourcing, so hopefully they read better now. I also added information on bryophytes and lichens (although lichens are quite sparse in the Tibesti). Thanks a lot for suggesting that. Let me know if it needs more work.
Re splitting to a new article – I don't know. I think in theory a lot of the sections could have their own articles, but I'm not sure any of them desperately warrant it yet. The Tibesti Mountains have not been heavily studied, so there's not a lot of information out there. Moreover, I have absolutely zero expertise in biology, and I don't think I've ever written a biology-type article, so my confidence is not exactly high in terms of writing a decent one. That said, I'm not at all opposed to the idea in theory. Brycehughes (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section is now better. However, there’s still a lot of Latin in the flora section. I wonder if it might worth considering cutting some of this back by trying to use common names where possible and linking to the Latin name. This won’t be possible in all cases, and it might be difficult to make a judgment call on what common name to use when there’s more than one option available. But reading text like "sea rush and toad rush" is generally easier and more interesting than "Juncus maritimus and Juncus bufonius". Similarly, how about saying “the most common grass” rather than “the most common Poaceae”.
Some more comments on this section:
  • ”such as Enneri Yebige, which is virtually unexplored.”; “Although the lake appears rich in phytoplankton, it has not been thoroughly studied.” These statements are cited to sources that are over 20-25 years old; any updates since then?
  • 25 years is like yesterday in Tibesti exploration time. The region has been rife with conflict for nearly 60 years now, keeping most scientists away and limiting exploration to satellites. See the "Modern history" and "Scientific exploration and research" sections for a summary of that. I check somewhat regularly to see if there has been any new research or exploration, because it's like finding a diamond, but sadly no, there has not been to my knowledge. Brycehughes (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Acacia nilotica grow near these water basins.”; “while Tamarix nilotica grow at similar elevations” It sounds pretty odd to me to use "grow" instead of "grows"
  • ”20 to 60 cm (7.9 to 23.6 in) “ too much accuracy in the output compared to what was put in, especially since the first set of numbers looks like a rough approximation anyway
  • Done, but had to handwrite it because you can't set significant figures independently on a ranged convert template converting it to integers worked. Brycehughes (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”and do not exceed one meter.” should have a convert for that too
  • fix "At the highest elevation elevations"
  • please add a picture or two of the most common plants, to help break up the text, and so I know what to look for next time I visit!
  • @Buidhe had removed the images (which I'm fine with) in this edit, along with the edit summary "Only use plants that have been photographed in or around the mountains", which, given that this is the Tibesti Mountains, is exactly zero. I wonder if it's okay to use an image or two with captions making it clear that this is an example of the plant but not photographed in the Tibesti? If not, we might be stuck on this one. Brycehughes (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be opposed to that if the caption is clear. The issue is massive galleries of flora and fauna photographed in a different location. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nevertheless, the positive effects of the gold discovery should not be underestimated." This phrase sounds quite odd in Wikipedia voice ... Esculenta (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review @Esculenta! Brycehughes (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Esculenta, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only read the flora and fauna section, and my suggestions have been addressed, but I can't really commit to a full support. Esculenta (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chipmunkdavis edit

My resolved issues, including writing issues, and sourcing spot check questions, are on the talkpage. Article appears well written (1a), comprehensive on a topic that is understandably difficult to obtain sources on (1bc), neutral and stable (1de). The lead seems a reasonable summary (2a), article structure perhaps a tad on the long side but not egregiously so (2b), all book journal and news sources use consistent shortform (2c). Media appropriate and checked above (3), and article is within length guidelines with no obvious excess or tangents (4). CMD (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot edit

Looks like an excellent article. I have only a handful of small concerns.

  • "there is no relationship between the age of the volcanoes and their dimensions, geographic distribution or alignment, similar to the Hawaiian–Emperor and Cook-Austral seamount chains"— shouldn't this say "in contrast to" instead of "similar to"?
  • Do the sources specify why it's possible to identify the Toubou with the people mentioned in ancient sources like Herodotus and Julius Maternus? Ethnicity is a slippery phenomenon, and while I'm not familiar with Maternus, Herodotus's understanding of the world beyond Greece was… inconsistent, shall we say.
  • Regarding Herodotus, the severely colonial (to put it mildly) Chapelle 1982 (first published 1957) devotes a paragraph to the matter (in French), which I have copied to the talk page here. First he quotes Herodotus, roughly translated as, "From Awjila, then ten more days away, there is a mound of salt, water and palm trees. ... The people of Garamantes live here, and they hunt Ethiopian troglodytes using four-horse chariots. ... They speak an unusual language that sounds like the cry of bats." Chapelle then goes on to argue that these "Ethiopian troglodytes" are indeed the Toubou, roughly translated and paraphrased as: "We can reason that these 'Ethiopian troglodytes' are the Toubou. Troglodytes are by definition cave dwellers, and thus they could only have lived in the mountains near the Fezzan, either the Tassili n'Ajjer or the Tibesti. The terrain of the Tassili n'Ajjer and its neighboring ergs are not suitable for chariots, while the regs that stretch between the Fezzan and the Tibesti would have allowed four-horsed chariots to pursue the troglodytes who came to plunder the palm groves. Besides, the language of the Toubou does sound like the cry of bats." (He does reference a source in his argument [Behm, E. (1862). Le Pays et le peuple des Tebu.] but I have no idea where one would find that.) Do you think I should summarize this in the article, perhaps in an endnote? Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a brief note would be good.
  • Regarding Maternus, Oliver 1975 does not give a why, but he does say (p. 290), "And there is no reason why the Garamantes should not have shown their goodwill by allowing a Roman such as Maternus to take part in one of their expeditions (including camelry) against the southern 'Ethiopians' (in all probability the people of Teda [a Toubou people] and Tibesti and their neighbourhood)." Does that suffice? I could note the "probability" qualifier if necessary. Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fine with the qualifier.
  • Done. I used "almost certainly" as equivalent to the source's "in all probability". Brycehughes (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less significantly, saying that Herodotus "portrayed" (as opposed to "mentioned") the Toubou sounds odd, and given the ambiguity of ancient uses of the term "Ethiopian", it seems worth linking to Aethiopia, which explains those ambiguities.
  • I had momentary difficulty parsing the sentence about al-Maqrizi and Leo Africanus. "Recognized", again, sounds odder than "mentioned" or "referred to", and "that is to say" is wordier than "or" or "meaning".
  • The section on the Chadian Civil War uses the qualifiers "basically" and "largely", but these are the kinds of words that can often be cut (though it depends on what the sources say).
  • To paraphrase, the article says, "The Tibesti area was basically ungovernable and thus the French left it largely alone". The key passage in the source (Nolutshungu 1995) is: "General Edouard Cortadellas had to admit the impossibility of subduing the Toubou in their own area. ... He concluded, 'I believe that we should draw a line below it and leave them to their stones. We can never subdue them.' Subsequent French policy never strayed far from that view." Accordingly, I've deleted "basically" since I suppose "impossibility" is pretty definitive there, but I lean towards keeping "largely" because "never strayed far" does allow some wriggle room for French interventions. Brycehughes (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • "Where mosquitoes do not abound, they support several villages…" If people don't settle in the most mosquito-ridden areas, it's better to make that explicit, and ideally say why (because the mosquitoes spread disease or are just a nuisance). A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source (Hughes, Hughes and Bernacsek 1992, p. 20) is pretty vague on this: "Where these oases are accessible, and not infested by mosquitoes, their natural vegetation of Acacia, Ficus, Hyphaene and Tamarix, tends to have been replaced by Phoenix dactylifera. Communities have developed at several sites ...". I suppose I'd argue that we're pretty safe in letting the reader infer that people avoid mosquito-infested areas because mosquitoes are universally known to be, at the very least, bloody annoying, and I worry about any extrapolation going outside the bounds of the sourced info. What do you think? Brycehughes (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all the sources say, that's all they say, so you can leave it as is. A. Parrot (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review, A. Parrot! Just a few questions above. Brycehughes (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Version reviewed

  • The lead says the Toubou first "appeared" in the range in 5th century BC, but the text says "settled" - I would say those are two different claims
  • Good point. I reworded both to "were settled in the range by the 5th century BC", in that they were first described as living in the range by Herodotus in the 5th century BC. I suppose they could have appeared there earlier. Brycehughes (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tarso Tôh, which includes 150 cinder cones, two maars and several basalt lava channels" - source?
  • Added: "Tarso Tôh". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
  • "The range is 380 km (240 mi) in length, 350 km (220 mi) in width,[11]" This source agrees the maximum width is 350k, but gives a much longer length
  • What makes Peaklist a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed, along with the endnote it was supporting. It was a compendium of data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission but it was only supporting a somewhat frivolous endnote, so I think the path of least resistance is removal. Brycehughes (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more rarely, the Northeast African cheetah". Cited source mentions cheetah but not this specific species nor that it is rarer
  • " Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia), of which it has the largest population in the world.[64][73][74]". I see that FN74 says it has the most important population, but it doesn't say largest
  • I removed the claim. I don't know what they mean by "plus importante population". I did some more research and it doesn't appear anyone really knows how many sheep live there. Brycehughes (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "20 CFA franc postage stamp issued by Republic of Chad in 1961" - source says 1962
  • What kind of source is Baroin 2003?
  • I suppose it's essentially a thesis, and so I've updated the citation template. Although it's a little strange, because Baroin was quite accomplished by 2003, having published multiple books (including one, Baroin 1985, that this article cites) and journal articles over previous decades.
  • It may well meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I'm going to argue from subject-matter expert. Baroin is a long-time expert in Saharan/sub-Saharan anthropology, and with regards to the Tibesti and the Toubou, she is one of the very few anthropologists with a focus on the area and its people. To support my claim, I've put together a sample of her work on the talk page to show that she is cited in works by high-quality, authoritative academics, journals and publishers as a subject-matter expert. The Tibesti does not get a lot of attention from scientists, due to its isolation and danger. Baroin is a rarity. Brycehughes (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radio France Internationale is sometimes italicized, sometimes not - should be consistent
  • Buzzati: as per this RfC, are there any secondary sources indicating the significance of this reference?
  • There's this one, which devotes several paragraphs to the story on pp. 13–14 that I believe establish its significance. I had already used the source as a reference in an endnote; I've now added it to the end of the Buzzati paragraph as well. Brycehughes (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hostage incident, known as "L'affaire Claustre" served to further destabilize Chad". This seems very close in wording to the source: "This hostage crisis "L'affaire Claustre" further destabilized Chad"
  • Similarly "the French leader of the intervention force, General Edouard Cortadellas, admitted that the Tibesti area was ungovernable" versus the source's "the French leader of the intervention force Gen. Edouard Cortadellas conceded that the Toubou areas were basically ungovernable"
  • Have you checked for other instances of wording that may be too close to the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my wording review on the talk page here, which reviews each instance aside from the two we already worked through above. (Hopefully it makes sense but please let me know if you need any clarification.) As a result of this, I have changed the wording of four further instances because they paraphrased the source too closely. Brycehughes (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed a number of other works, which led to these changes here. I've written a short overview on the talk page here. Brycehughes (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fisher and Fisher seems an odd source for what it's citing; can you explain? Ditto Leclant - why not cite the actual work instead of the review?
  • Re Fisher and Fisher: it's supporting "his expedition was fiercely opposed by the Toubou". For example, the "violent threats" discussion on page 36 and the "the intrusion into the Tibesti of an unauthorised and unwelcome foreigner" on page 37.
  • Re Leclant: I don't have access to the reviewed work. I'm stuck on an island in the middle of the ocean (thanks, pandemic), we don't have Amazon, etc. (plus, it's expensive), and according to WorldCat I'd have to travel to North America or Europe to find it in a library. It is searchable on Google books, and I have a hunch where the info might be, but Google Books isn't giving me access to the full pages in search, only useless snippets. So, I've sourced it from the review. Brycehughes (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Hagedorn have an ISBN?
  • What makes GlobalTwitcher a high-quality reliable source?
  • Huß is missing publisher
  • Mahjoub includes publication location but most sources don't - should be consistent. Also the link mentions a translator who should be credited
  • Tubiana & Gramizzi also has location when most sources don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. Brycehughes (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The specific issues identified above have been resolved, but just noting that Buidhe also found some text-source integrity issues - would strongly suggest going through to look for more of these kinds of problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks edit

I checked several cites and found that a majority were not backed up by the cited source. In particular, there was an issue with generalizations made with original research. See talk for details. (t · c) buidhe 11:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, many thanks for the review. I've responded on talk. Once you've had a chance to look at the responses, I'll proceed from there. Thanks again, Brycehughes (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging here, Buidhe, I would be very happy if you could find the time to look at my responses in the next few days, but if you're busy, I absolutely understand. Brycehughes (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- if there are issues with a spotcheck after the nom's been open almost two months my immediate inclination is to archive and ask that rework be done outside of FAC; since Bryce has responded to the concerns, I'll give Buidhe a bit longer to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am striking my oppose because reconsidering the responses, I am not sure if this is a systematic issue. However, I think the article would benefit from more source checks. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Heh, I think this has probably been left to bleed out on here long enough, and so you can archive it. At a certain point it just gets embarrassing. I do however want to sincerely thank Buidhe, Esculenta, Chipmunkdavis, A. Parrot and Nikkimaria for putting the time in to review this article, and I also want to sincerely apologise to you all for not being able to get it over the finish line. I started work on this article nearly a decade ago, initially translating it from the French article in 2013. I’ve never had any grand designs on getting it featured. (Once upon a time back in 2016 when I was, uh, not sober and not even really devoting much time to Wikipedia I nominated it at FAC… I knew not what I was doing… sorry about that.) But working on this article over the years has brought me a great deal of joy, and when an admin recently accidentally nominated it at GAN and the GAN reviewer strongly recommended I put it in for FAC I thought, why not? You only live once. I’ve enjoyed almost every minute of this FAC review process, and I remain in utter admiration of the editors, reviewers and coordinators that bring articles on this free website up to an almost-beyond encyclopedic standard. Although Tibesti Mountains won’t get its star, I believe that it is a very good article—especially now, after FAC. For an almost unexplored mountain range with very little media/research coverage in literally the farthest reach of Africa, only Wikipedia could thoroughly sketch it in such an accessible forum, and that I believe is something we can all be proud of. Brycehughes (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryce, this is the thing with spotchecks, I've been in Buidhe's position myself as a reviewer: if one finds specific issues and they're all addressed then that's great, but they are just a subset of all the references and there's the nagging doubt about the rest unless the nominator goes through all the other citations to ensure there are no similar issues, after which we'd want to run another spotcheck of a few citations that weren't part of the original check. If you don't feel you can invest that time then yes we should close this -- pls just let me know that's still the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I suggest closing not based on the spot check nor due to time constraints, but rather this has been open for over two months now and has attracted relatively little attention. It lives, somewhat pathetically, at the bottom of the FAC stack. (Even a "Source review – Pass" wouldn't yet be sufficient for promotion.) Whether there's a star in the corner of the article or not has little bearing on the reader experience; due to the efforts of the reviewers, it is now a very high quality article and should remain that way; and I think there is at least some onus on my part to suggest we keep the FAC highway moving. Brycehughes (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for reviews certainly is no shame. It doesn't necessarily speak for the quality of an article, but often a subject can seem daunting to many reviewers (I've often waited weeks and weeks for reviews during FACs that eventually got promoted). I was considering reviewing this, and if left open, I will soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Christ... I already gave the concession speech ha. Alright, I suppose in that case I am somewhat obliged to keep this going. Thanks, FunkMonk. I'm looking forward to your review. (I also look forward to a time when I don't consistently humiliate myself on this website!)
So, given that I now need to tackle this source check, please see here on the talk page (esp. Buidhe... would really appreciate your input there when you get a chance.) Brycehughes (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • Some preliminary points first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terms linked in the intro should also be linked at first mention in the article body, such as Sahara.
  • Stratovolcano, caldera, fumarole, and other such unfamiliar terms could be linked in the article body.
  • Hi FunkMonk, looks like this article still didn't cut it in the source check. Thanks for taking a look and I'll try to knock these points out in the future, after this is closed.
Ok, and feel free to ping me once this is nominated again. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Feel free to archive, and thank you again to everyone who's participated. This is a very fine process, and likewise I think we've built a very fine article. Brycehughes (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2021 (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/Tibesti_Mountains/archive2&oldid=1019079414"