Talk:Cueva de las Manos

message: If someone could check the Magnin citation, that would be great. I think I'm interpreting it correctly, but I think it would be a good idea for another person to check just in case. Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnin Citation 

message: , I tweaked the lead a bit for flow and made the artwork description/process a bit more precise. My suggestion to you at this point, is to read what I tweaked, and update the body text to reflect the same terminology that's in the lead. Also, Carlos Gradín is worthy of an article. My suggestion is for you to create a stub (or something better if you have time) so we can blue link the red link in this article. Once you get that done, ping me, and I will continue the review. Also, I noticed that you did not make it a formal peer review by nominating it, which is ok because it will give me a chance to do some initial tweaking. Once we're through the initial phase, I suggest that you request a formal peer review, and then you will be well on your way to a WP:GAC and possibly WP:FAC. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 17:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've added a Notes section, and am also ready to continue the review. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I also did everything you've mentioned (to the best of my ability). Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial review 

message: I've deleted the statement: "The main cave measures 248 m (814 ft) in depth" because it contradicts the other sources, with this website being the only source that I could find in support. If there's a source that I'm missing that says otherwise or if you disagree with this, please respond. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted contradictory statement on depth 

message: I noticed some inconsistency over  and . Looking briefly over the edit history of the article, I felt that it had been started mostly in AmE and that this dialect probably has prior claim. (I do admit that I have not given it anything like the full Sherlock Holmes treatmentI really do mean a quick look.) Furthermore, regional ties seem to me to make it more likely that AmE is rightand, for example, the Argentina article is in AmE and marked as such. I mean, I don't want to fall into ignorant assumptions about N and S America but, as a very non-expert editor, this is how it seemed to me. Do feel free to debate it but for the moment I have boldly made a few relevant changes and added an AmE tag to this page, in the hope of reducing future uncertainty. Of course I am happy to discuss it but that's where I am with it right now. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help, . I do agree that this article has (strong) national ties to Argentina—and to a greater extent, the Tehuelche people—and should apply whatever variety of English is common there. That being said, I think we (probably) shouldn't solidify American English as the official standard just yet until we figure out the preferred Argentine/Tehuelche variety for sure. I'm not entirely sure what variety is entirely popular (or at least, enjoys the most popularity) in Argentina (or if it has its own variety). However, as you said, feel free to debate this point—especially if you think that it would be better to set a temporary standard that can be changed later. Thanks again, Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very welcome. I have no strong feeling about this other than (a) it would be very very nice and appropriate an ting to get it right by regional/local standards, as you say, and (b) that within-article consistency is to be highly valued! I was much more bugged about "meter" and "metre" visible together than I would be about a well-informed decision to push the whole thing in one direction or the other. So, yes, I am very happy to regard my intervention as being as temporary as is useful ... I am certainly not up for a fight over this and indeed may well have nothing more to contribute on it as it's really not my area. I did have a quick look at the Tehuelche people article; whilst I get it that those editors' decisions are not necessarily relevant or binding here, that one is pretty clearly in AmE with drivers like "center", "neighbor", "traveler" pushing it to the West and nothing much for the East! Does that help? Dunno. Happy editing! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps. Sounds pretty well-reasoned out to me :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AmE and BrE 

message: The cave was an inspiration for a popular children's book titled Ghost Hands. More information about it can be found in the work:
Is it worthy of mention in the article? Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: hell yes! (COI declaration: I am a primary school teacher so I would say that, wouldn't I?) But yes - it seems notable to me (trying to be NPoV!) that it inspired a successful work of children's literature and a third-party academic commentary thereon, and the article is not exactly overburdened with cultural references, so I think I would go for it. Others' mileage may vary, of course, and it might not last, but I would be very tempted to pop it in and see what others think. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment for others interested in looking at it, Loomis is the author writing about the book, and the book Ghost Hands itself is by Barron and Low. Hope this helps, DBaK (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Added it in. Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one! I'm trying to get hold of a copy ... cheers DBaK (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I include information about ''Ghost Hands''? 

message: *Linked Puma, fox, and hunter-gatherer, and national monument
*Removed the first "in"
*Added Francisco Mena's credentials
*Added link to national historic monument
I don't know why "precordilleran steppe" is in italics, although if I had to guess it would be because it is a loanword/Spanish? I don't know where to get geological info on the cave, which on the whole seems to be treated as insignificant by the extant sources apart from the human interactions surrounding it. Information on the cave itself is minuscule. Where should I put a new image grouping? Also, Carlos Gradin's occupation is mentioned. Do you mean stuff like "Dr." "M.D." and the like?  is a spiral alongside no idea what kind of animal it is and  is a depiction of a lizard, which might be relevant. The earliest evidence of inhabitation is from 11,000 to 7,500 BC, from the paintings. I have not been able to access Father Agostini's work at this time, so I do not know how broad his writings were. Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For geological info, you could include how and when the canyon formed, when the cave opened up, evidence of cave-ins if any, what rocks the cave is made of and maybe a comment on if this particular rock has a tendency to form caves, and the vegetation and climate around the cave since the time of formation and through habitation (you only include present day right now)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, it is easier if you write "done" and add questions under individual points, that's how it will be expected at FAC, and it makes it much easier to answer. As for  "precordilleran steppe", that is not really a Spanish term (though in part based on Spanish), so shouldn't be necessary. In addition to what Dunkleosteus says about geology, perhaps  knows where to find info about caves, having worked on other geological articles? FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: this briefly talks about the formation of the canyon just glossing over it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much more to add, but here would be a place to start. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and again, articles you can't get there can be requested at WP:RX. I thin I'll continue reviewing the text when the above issues are dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Thank you! I've added the necessary information on the cave. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking really good so far! I'll continue the review soon. There is a somewhat smaller chance of getting full books rather than individual research papers at RX, but fingers crossed, I've gotten a book once. Maybe you can get individual chapters instead, if you know which are important. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also remember to request any paywalled paper found here that looks usable: FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! Should I just look at the first 10 results? I have reviewed every paper that has been written in English on Google Scholar under this search criteria. Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Any results that look relevant, doesn't matter what page. One of the main FAC criteria is comprehensive use of the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So I should check all 1,330 results to see what looks relevant? Just wanted to clarify because that's a lot of results. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They diminish in relevance the further you go, but I certainly wouldn't restrict myself to the first page of results. I'd skim through the pages and see if they keep being relevant, when they stop being relevant, there's probably not more to get. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience sometimes even after a run of irrelevant results you can find one or two relevant ones. On the other hand, many results won't be usable because you already have the information or because they don't meet WP:RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

text: , Just put all of the applicable information mentioned above into the article. Thank you for the helpful suggestions! Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I think that would be fine, but be sure to check the sources used there to see if they do support all the info. Will return with answers to the other points when it's all done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already gone ahead and incorporated the paragraph into the climate section, but thank you for the input :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Also, I've expanded on the section on stylistic group A. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: FunkMonk, Dunkleosteus, & Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've included more information on the paleoclimate of the cave as well as added some more information from other sources into the article. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections/responses 

message: Tyrone, I saw you were asking for help with reference formatting consistency.  You may find this script useful. I ran it against the article and it found a few things such as chapters cited without pagenumbers identified in the source, and inconsistencies in whether you give publisher locations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Mike! I've downloaded the script. Are you okay with helping to enforce consistency with me? Some manual assistance would be very helpful in this case, although I will be sure to take full advantage of the script that you've just shared with me. I think removing publication locations altogether might be best practice going forward. Thank you for your help! Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to but I don't know how much time I have -- I just started a FAC review that might be time-consuming.  I can try to do a pre-FAC review for you if you like, but if FunkMonk thinks you're ready, you're probably ready -- they're very experienced. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Tyrone has just listed the article for copy edit, which can take quite a while, so there should be time for additional comments. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Added page numbers to all chapters and removed all location information from references. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formatting 

message: Wainright et al. and Galende & Vegah disagree over the average annual precipitation of the area. Wainright et al. state that it is less than 2 cm, whilst Galende & Vegah's article (and the official Cueva de las Manos website, for that matter) state that the average annual rainfall is around 200 mm, which is over ten times the amount of the former. Which figure should be used in this article? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases like this, you state what you just did above; one source says one thing, another says another thing. You don't have to present it as if it's there's only one truth. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, FunkMonk! Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual Precipitation source conflict 

message: @FunkMonk & Mike Christie: Would either or both of you be willing to co-nominate with me at FAC? Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we can't support! Since you did all the work yourself so far, I think you'd do fine with a solo nomination. The reviews I and Mike gave above are pretty much at FAC level, so you should be prepared enough. FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- I'd much rather be in a position to support.  But thanks for the offer! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

text: And thanks for the great article! Yeah, I guess it depends on what the specific mentorship includes. If it includes the mentor doing significant work on the article, I'd assume they were ineligible, but if they are merely doing peer reviews, like here, it is just that, a peer review. FunkMonk (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry too much about having a lot of free time.  Don't nominate it at a time you know you're going to be swamped in real life, but a nomination can easily run four to six weeks, so you do have some flexibility.  I know of one prolific nominator who only edits at weekends, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, feel free to ping me here when you feel ready. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Thanks for checking in! Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-nomination 

message: Just watched a video by Solar Sands and they quoted the article! It's really fun to see the work you've done being used by others, even if you and your work go unmentioned. It also brought home the theme of obscurity and going unnoticed. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3glEk50cgM&t=20s. Tyrone Madera (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, seems it's 18 minutes in, if anyone is going to look. Wonder why they used that European aurochs cave painting image though, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, forgot to mention the timestamp. Wikipedia doesn't let you use timestamped urls for YouTube, for some reason. I thought the aurochs were funny too, lol. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quoted in popular YouTube video