# Talk:Tibesti Mountains

In this picture, the north is down : You can compare with the Bini Erde's position, near the crater of Emi Koussi on http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/chad/map/m1621001/bini_erde.html. and many other web sites  --Jacques Taberlet (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the article needs proofreading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.226.135 (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 

ick, the grammar is atrocious in this article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.154.109 (talk • contribs) 03:29 July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.unep.org/dewa/giwa/areas/reports/r43/regional_definition_giwa_r43.pdf, http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~raman/papers2/Parmeter&OppChadBV.pdf and http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Portals/15/CHAD.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this article could satisfy GA requirements. However, I have not made significant changes to the article for me to nominate it. RedWolf (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@RedWolf: Thanks. I added most of the content. I believe I nominated it for GA or FA once upon a time, but unfortunately I lack the personal gumption to get it over the finish line. Brycehughes (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Brycehughes: You have done a great job with the content changes. I have nominated it although I kind of did it by accident. I added the nomination template yesterday but decided not to proceed due to my minor contributions to the article. However I clicked page save without realizing the nomination was still in the edit. I only noticed it just after reading your reply today. I'm fine with leaving the nomination stand now that I'm aware of a major active contributor and I can try to address the reviewer's comments but if you are around to assist that would be most welcome. However, if you're not comfortable with that or lack the time, that is not a problem. Given the backlog it might be a while before a review is started. Thanks. RedWolf (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@RedWolf: Sure, happy to assist. Not sure how much heavy lifting I can do, but hopefully there won't be a whole lot required. Brycehughes (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Brycehughes: Excellent. Some of the references are in French and German which I wouldn't be able to verify so help might be needed there. RedWolf (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tibesti Mountains/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 17:38, 2 February 2021 (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): 
The prose standard is excellent, and the article complies with all the required sections of MoS. It's a little on the long side (WP:LENGTH puts it just shy of "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)"), but I don't think there's any need to consider a split. A few tiny notes: I probably wouldn't repeat "geopolitical situation" twice so close together in the lead. I'm not sure the distance and direction to the Cameroon line adds much to the "Location" section; it would be more clear to say that the mountains are halfway between Lake Chad and the Gulf of Sidra, rather than just the Mediterranean Sea in general. Near the end of "Topography", is Lava spine really the correct destination for the link on "volcanic spires"? That article makes it sound like a "lava spine" is something that forms as a volcano is actively erupting, whereas these features sound more like volcanic plugs exposed by subsequent erosion? In "Human settlement" it would be nice to add a date to the paragraph about Julius Maternus's expedition through the region (the linked article seems to indicate that it took place c. 90 CE?). In the first paragraph of the section "Tibesti War", in the phrase "forcing their withdrawal from the mountains" I can't tell which party is forcing which party's withdrawal. In "Climbing history", it currently reads "The first sporting climb was probably that of the peak and needle of Botoum, at 2,400 m (7,900 ft) and 2,400 m (7,900 ft), respectively"; these probably aren't meant to be the same number? It doesn't seem to me that the external links to "Information on climbing, with map" and "Information about the mountains, with images" add anything; the promised information doesn't particularly go beyond what's already in this article, and the map and images are small and poor. I also don't see any value added by the "Travel page with photos (in German)", coming immediately before a similar English-language account with far more art.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
There are citations throughout to reputable sources, though many are offline or paywalled; I'll have to AGF on those citations. The link to Beauvilain 1996 seems to be dead, as does the link to "Chad: Toubou and Daza: Nomads of the Sahara". In "Location" I don't see the claim that the Tibesti range is the "largest geologic area of the [Sahara]" supported in the cited document (though the document is very long, so I could be overlooking it). In "Flora" the final sentence of the first paragraph ("dense thickets of Tamarix aphylla and Salvadora persica") lacks a citation. Likewise, in "Chadian–Libyan conflict" the first paragraph ends with claims that cite no sources. "Wondermondo.com" doesn't seem like a reliable source with editorial oversight; there's got to be a better source for everything being cited from it. In "Conservation" where this article claims that "A protected area in the Tibesti range has been proposed", the cited source seems rather to indicate that it's the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences that has done the proposing, which seems irrelevant, since it isn't up to them; I find the text misleading, as it seems to mean that *Chad* has proposed a protected area. The first paragraph in "Culture" ends with two sentences not supported by any citation. All the other sources I can access appear to substantiate the claims in the article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article is extremely thorough in covering all major aspects of the topic and doesn't wander into unrelated matters.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article maintains a suitably neutral tone, not e.g. exaggerating the importance of the topic or taking sides in historical conflicts described in the history section.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
The article has been quite stable since nomination, with only a few minor and technical edits over the past few months.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The article is extremely well illustrated by highly relevant and suitable images. Almost all of the images have suitable PD or CC licenses. One has a licensing problem: File:Gustav Nachtigal 02.jpg has no United States PD tag, and I couldn't see any information about the source or artist (the source link on the Commons page is dead) to judge when the artist died. It'd be great if the nominator could investigate and establish the provenance.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This is a fantastic article, extremely thorough and well researched. There are some prose and clarity issues and a few bits of sourcing and licensing that need to be cleaned up, but the vast majority of it is already excellent. I'm putting this on hold, and looking forward to hearing from the nominator! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Bryanrutherford0:, thanks for all your effort on this review! I am not the nominator, but I did add the majority of the content to the article (many years ago). I believe I've addressed all your concerns, save for one: re the Cameroon Line, the sentence is putting the Tibesti in a volcanic geographic context, with the Cameroon Line and the Rift Valley being the nearest large volcanic features. That said, I'm not wed to the line.
Also note that I've added three new paragraphs to the article, two on the MDJT War and one on the gold rush. (It had annoyed me for years that the history just stopped in the mid-1980s... there was a whole other war!). I assume you might want to take a look at those?
I'm not sure how these article reviews work, but I suppose I too am looking forward to hearing from the nominator! Brycehughes (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Fabulous work! I appreciate you responding so quickly and effectively. These changes indeed address all of my concerns, and the article now meets the GA standard. I hope you'll consider running this as a Featured Article candidate, as well! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
A big thanks to Bryan Rutherford for reviewing the article for GA and to Brycehughes for addressing the concerns of the reviewer. I looked at the article yesterday after Bryce had made their first round of changes. I updated some GVP references and fixed a couple minor issues with Emmi Koussi but certainly Bryce deserves full credit for pushing it that final step to GA. Well done.I'll take a look at the FA requirements and consider an FA nomination. My biggest concern about being the nominator is that there are quite a few non-English sources (primarily French) of which I'm not able to verify myself. So if the reviewer has some questions about the non-English sources, I would not be able to help with addressing those concerns. RedWolf (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)