Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Twyfelfontein/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:00, 5 January 2011 [1].

Twyfelfontein[edit]

Featured article candidates/Twyfelfontein/archive1

Nominator(s): Pgallert (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Twyfelfontein for featured article because I currently cannot see how it could be further improved. I'm not saying it is perfect, I just cannot see what to do, and I solicit input from the reviewers regarding what it needs to be lifted to FA. There is only one unresolved issue from GA review: the book by Scherz, Ernst-Rudolf (1975) which is not available. This is not just a lazy statement, the world's biggest library of Namibian texts does not have it, neither does anyone else in Namibia, as far as I know.--Pgallert (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Would like to see a reference for the meaning of ǀUi-ǁAis, given as "jumping waterhole" in the article; there are others that say "only well" or "surrounded by rocks".~~
~~Ref number 7 doesn't work (gives a mere searchbox) :(~~

cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, ref 7 was apparently moved somewhere else; I fixed this. It also contains the translation reference you're looking for. --Pgallert (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: The nom statement indicates that you have nominated this at FAC to "solicit input from the reviewers regarding what it needs to be lifted to FA". That indicates that the nomination is premature; FAC procedures require that you ensure the article meets all of the FA criteria before you nominate it. If you are still seeking input, the appropriate forum is WP:Peer review. I note that though the article has had some informal talkpage review, it has not gone through PR. A few comments on sources follow. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did of course read the requirements before I nominated. The reason I worded it like this was that I am new to FAC and really don't know what to expect. I wasn't aware that the peer review was unofficial. Expect the "brilliant English" requirement which I cannot fulfill because I am not a native speaker I believed everything was up to scratch. I did not expect that this would pass without any comments, of course. --Pgallert (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

Ref 4: This links to a site advertising the Twyfelfontein Country Lodge hotel. Why is this a high-quality encyclopedic source?
Ref 7: There are 700+ archives in this source, but you give no information as to which of these have been cited in your text, hence these statements cannot be verified. For each citation you need to provide search details.
Ref 9: Who is the publisher of this German-language source?

fixed ref 7. Ref 9 is self-published by the late Dr.Dierks (better: his heirs). If this is an issue, the text ref 9 refers to has also appeared as book; I thought the web ref is better because the reader could look it up. Ref 4 can probably be replaced with existing sources, only the speculation that some engravings might be 10,000 years old is not supported anywhere else, I believe. Is tourism literature generally to be avoided? I so far assumed these texts are fine as long as only tourism-related facts are taken from there. --Pgallert (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The description and analysis of the "big thing" here - the rock art - is simply too brief for FA; just a couple of short paragraphs. It is unfortunate (especially as you read German) that you can't get hold of Scherz. Have you tried asking the National Museum/Archaeological Service? But there are other books: The hunter and his art: a survey of rock art in Southern Africa, Jalmar Rudner, Ione Rudner, C. Struik, 1970 looks promising, Rock art research: the journal of the Australian Rock Art Research ...: Volume 20, 2003 seems to have a paper. The Archaeology of Southern Africa by Peter Mitchell is readable (to me anyway) on google books and refers to a great deal of literature [2]. As it is all your references are online (ok some UNESCO & one JSTOR) which doesn't really cut it. I'm sorry to have to say this as African FAs are so rare, & I don't think we have any on sub-Saharan African art. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Johnbod. How long should the art discussion be? The two really well-known slabs are mentioned and pictured, and some of the interesting speculation (penguins? sea lions?) is in. I tried to be as concise as possible when writing this article, that's why it is so short. Regarding the books, I am aware of some of them but could not see any obvious omission from them. Most have many pictures and very few scientific discussion. "The hunter and his art" I have held in my hands, nothing salvageable in there. BTW, what is the "deadline" before this gets de-listed--an expansion like the one you request is not written in an hour. Or is that too late anyway because of your oppose? --Pgallert (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprehensive" not "concise" is what the FA criteria require. I can't specify a minimum length, but I would expect to see say 2,000 words at least, & I'm sure it could be much longer. Another thing that should be covered is the climate during the long period concerned; there is a good deal on the modern climate but nothing on what were presumably very different climatic conditions at various points in the art-making period. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is also a National Library. It is perhaps not surprising if the Polytechnic library does not have Scherz, as it specializes in vocational and applied scientific subjects, as you will know. Johnbod (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Polytechnic library has the largest Namibiana collection in the world; my office is situated 100m away. That doesn't mean they have everything, of course. The National Library doesn't have the book--as mentioned in the nomination I checked the most obvious places for this book. --Pgallert (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs; this external link as timing out but as it appears to be a Namibian government page it supposedly is only temporary. --Pres N 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I started an expansion as reaction to Johnbod's opposing comments, but now it is inconsistent in a number of factors--no way it is going to pass in its current state or in a state I might achieve during this week. I would appreciate directions on my talk page as to if and when I am allowed to resubmit (Is the Scherz book a necessary condition?). Please don't pull it from Wikipedia:Good articles, I will sort out the issues that have been raised but all libraries are closed due to summer holidays. I am really sorry if some of you feel I have wasted the time of the community. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that. I look forward to seeing an expanded article back here in due course. The GA status should remain, imo anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.