Talk:Ten Hamadi/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 01:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review shortly. GRAPPLE X 01:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 should be used in the body of the article, rather than the lead. Just add the "Hodh El Gharbi region" bit under "Geography and climate", use the ref there, and let it stand without a ref in the lead.
I'd drop the "only"s out of phrases like "only two health posts" or "Only one third of the people". Just saying "there is X" is simply stating a fact, but "there is only X" veers towards taking a view on what there "should" be, if that makes sense.
Ref 3 seems a bit off too. I'd recommend appending [[wikt:ff.|ff.]] to explain the term, but since the information the ref is used for is also covered by ref 13 in the article body, I'd say just drop ref 3 entirely as it's only used in the lead.
"There were 20 "mahadras", or traditional schools" -> I'd use italics rather than quotes here, it's generally a better way to indicate a loanword. Same with "The "Route de l’Espoir" ".
Are there any links worth using when we're talking about the tribal demographics? I don't really know Mauritania at all to know if these are closely-related peoples or not. If there's nothing to link don't worry about it.

Nope.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought as much. :( GRAPPLE X 08:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind I'm not familiar with geography article but I don't know if we need to report on the lack of X or Y (midwives, for example), as the list of what a small undeveloped commune doesn't have could be pretty large. Willing to concede this one easily though.

For cities and towns. even villages in Europe, no we wouldn't, but as a dirt poor rural commune in Mauritania commenting on facilities is pretty important I feel.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair do. GRAPPLE X 08:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There are 16 caves, so there may be some tourism potential, but there are no tourist lodgings." -> unless there's a stated desire to encourage tourism I don't know if this one's worth mentioning, really.

Removed tourism speculation and mentioned 16 caves in geo section.

Is there a "Bedr 2"? Seems to go from 1 to 3.

No, I'm basing it on the source which doesn't mention Bedr 2.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 01:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. GRAPPLE X 08:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look okay to me in terms of reliability, but my French is useless outside the kitchen. With the "Plan de developpement" cites, though, I would drop the caps and the ellipses, as neither is needed and they'll look cleaner without. "PLAN DE DEVELOPPEMENT..., p. 16." should become "Plan de developpement, p. 16.", for example.

They're government sources and considering this is about an obscure rural commune in Mauritania we're lucky to have found this amount of info on it. Honestly. we've scoured the web and this is as much as exists right now. I was so convinced of that that I nominated it for GA. A week is fine to allow for a copyedit and polish.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not doubting their reliability, just saying that I couldn't read them for spotchecks. It's not a problem. GRAPPLE X 08:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption could maybe do with specifying where it is (Ayoun el Atrous, which seems to be nearby, rather than specific to the location, so a better caption would mention that this is typical terrain rather than the actual place).

It is to the northeast of the commune, a few miles, but badly needed the picture of the vicinity.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting the pic's worth, just saying the new caption is a better fit. GRAPPLE X 08:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not too bad an article at the end of all that, going to stick it on hold for a week while changes are seen to. Nothing too major to be doing. GRAPPLE X 03:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am getting a few edits in now before work so I don't have time right now to check the copyedit but at a glance this looks ready. I'll be back in a few hours to check for sure. GRAPPLE X 08:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Another off-kilter but vital addition. Well done! GRAPPLE X 20:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully more info will become available over time.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]