# Talk:Desert kite

This review is transcluded from Talk:Desert kite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 04:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article; if I do not get to it within ~36 hours please ping me. eviolite (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Passes spotchecks, at least from the sources I can access at present
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
No obvious gaps
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Picture is VRT-approved and clearly relevant.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Prose comments
### Lead
Consider linking North Africa, Central Asia, and Arabia
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
"6000 known such structures" seems awkward to me, maybe just "6,000 known desert kites"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
"meters"/(kilo)"metres", be consistent
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
link gazelle, maybe
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


### Appearance and occurrence
"made up by" seems odd, maybe something like "composed of"
It might be clear if you explicitly said "linear piles of stones"
The dimensions mentioned are for the kites, not the piles, right? For clarity I'd recommend splitting the measurements into another sentence
Done to here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
What does "accounting of erosion" include in this case?
That the piles weren't much higher before erosion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
", or even lines formed by" - maybe "or the result of lines formed by"
Commas around and "but in one common structure"
"a structure consisting of" is redundant
Done to here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
What are these "attached cells"?
Places where the wall is bent outward, akin to the letter omega. Not sure how to formulate it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
"which are interpreted as" - "which have been interpreted as"
If much larger and smaller sizes are also known, is the 10k sq m just an average then? If so that should be noted.
Add comma after "were eroded or submerged"
"although they occur at their margins" - I may be wrong but I think the source is saying they occur at the margins of mountains regions rather than that of endorheic basins, so should be clarified
Done to here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
what does "open" terrain refer to?
Lack of vegetation and rocks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
What is a "slope break"?
Where a slope changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
"Humid climate" is a dab page
Can't do anything about this, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
"are known from Europe" - given the structure of this sentence, change to "have been found in Europe"
"Mesolithic-Neolithic age" - maybe "the Mesolithic and Neolithic ages"?
Consider rewording " in North America structures used into the 19th century AD known as drive lines," to something like "North America, where structures known as drive lines have been used into the 19th century AD,"
I don't think drive line is linking to the correct article
Done to here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


### Function
"are traps" - "were used as traps", maybe
remove "just" in "just linear structures", sounds like editorializing
Done to here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
What is this "significant impact on wild animals"? If there are no details I'd recommend removing the sentence.
Source doesn't specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


### Research history
"either" in "interpreted either as" is redundant
I assume a toy kite is just a kite, so change that to avoid the redlink.
"are" -> "include" in "research are what"
Done to here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks! I've done some minor copyediting as I said on a second pass; of course, feel free to change them back if you find them to be incorrect or unhelpful, but I am happy to promote this to GA now. Great work! eviolite (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: See my comments above for a first pass; I might go through and do minor copyedits later as well. eviolite (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

What is the preferred terminology if you are only talking about the region? I know nothing about whatever consensus there might already be in this wiki-war zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Usually mention both. But are there actually any kites in the State of Palestine? – Joe (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Based on the map here it seems like there is one kite in the West Bank. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Aha. That would be Ein Gedi, I think. Well spotted. – Joe (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 ​ Seems like the disagreement is coming up again. My understanding is that the southern Negev (which is the area discussed in the article) is generally considered part of Israel the state and not of Palestine, but again this is an area where I don't know the consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The Negev is no more disputed than any other part of Israel. It was allotted to Israel in the 1947 plan, and on Wikipedia we generally refer to those areas as Israel without qualification. These edits[1][2] are pure disruptive POV-pushing. – Joe (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition, but this addition needs some work. Proseline is generally considered a bad style; the new information ideally should be integrated in the existing text, not dropped in as an unrelated paragraph. That and the citation format isn't congruent with the rest of the article. Putting this here as a comment largely because myself I prefer to update articles only at the end of the year, especially if the information in question is of the "breaking news" variety that is often clarified or debunked later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We should also point out (as the authors of the paper do) that this is not the first known depiction of a kite in rock art. The extremely precise part is what's new. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
My bad, apologies for a poor addition. Euor (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I've rewritten the addition. It wasn't so much a "poor addition" and mainly needed some format rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I just stumbled over the news, skimmed the article, then figured I'd add the information on an impulse. But I should have paid more attention to format and so on, as I see this article has been given much care and attention. Wish you a good day.--Euor (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)