Talk:Desert/GA1

Article promoted --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 13:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Since this is quite a lengthy article, I ask that you wait one or two days before I present my criticisms. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 13:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking it on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

After having spent a ridiculous amount of time reviewing the article and looking around, I have decided that the best course of action here would be to quick-fail the article. Since it has totally omitted desert farming, the article does not meet GA criterion 3a. However, I am assuming you would eventually nominate this for FAC, so I took a bit of effort to criticise everything. Please read through the whole page first to ensure that I have not misunderstood anything in the article. I hope you find my detailed review helpful, as it is my most thorough yet.
 * "A desert is part of the terrestrial surface of the globe where little rain falls and in which few plants or animals are able to exist." → Perhaps "A desert is a type of terrain where little precipitation occurs and where living conditions are hostile to plants and animals." By the way, just a thought regarding the original wording, if there are deserts on Mars, wouldn't it be best to replace "of the globe" with "of a planet"? I have reservations about my own suggestion because it would sound odd. Your thoughts?
 * I have issues with the usage of the terms "rainfall" and "precipitation". They are strictly not interchangable, as the latter also includes snowfall. Would an area that receive less than 250 mm of rainfall per year but receive much more snow be considered a desert? Take for example, Cape Dorset, Nunavut. It received an average of 143.9 mm of rainfall each year from 1971 to 2000. But with 296.4 mm of annual snowfall added, its total average precipitation per year during this time was 403 mm. Would Cape Dorset be considered a desert or a steppe? You might be alluding to this in the fourth paragraph under "Classification", but the still the meaning of precipitation is unclear at the moment.
 * "About one third of the land surface of the world is arid, semi-arid or located in the polar regions, which also have little precipitation" – acccording to the Oxford Dictionary, arid means "having little or no rain; too dry or barren to support vegetation". If so, the polar regions are arid. I would rephrase the sentence as the two are not mutually exclusive.
 * "Although rain seldom occurs in deserts, there are occasional heavy downpours. Rain falling on hot rocks can cause them to shatter and dry creeks can become raging torrents with little warning. The rock and rubble strewn over the desert floor is further eroded by the wind." → "Although rain seldom occurs in deserts, there are occasional downpours that can result in flash floods. Rain falling on hot rocks can cause them to shatter and the resulting rocks and rubble strewn over the desert floor is further eroded by the wind."
 * Not done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Plants and animals living in the desert need special adaptations to enable them to survive in the harsh environment."
 * Not done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Convention dictates that "Etymology" comes first in the article.
 * Not done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it has. I moved the Etymology section to the beginning of the article before you made that comment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my mistake. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "A desert is a landscape or region of land" I don’t think "landscape" should be used in this context.
 * "98%" vs "20 percent" vs "forty percent" – please be consistent.
 * "250 millimetres (10 in)" vs "250 mm (10 in)" – please be consistent.
 * "40 °C (104 °F) to 7 °C (45 °F)" vs "30 and 32 °C (86 and 90 °F)" – again, please be consistent. I suggest you pick the latter.
 * "Deserts are sometimes classified as "hot" or "cold", "semiarid"" and "Semiarid deserts have long" vs "semiarid lands are generally referred to as steppes". Does this mean an area may be classified as a steppe and desert at the same time?
 * "The rainfall is very low, especially in winter, and may come in the form of the a very occasional heavy downpour."  Wait, so it is more likely to rain in a hot desert during summer than winter?
 * "The soil is coarse-textured gravel or sand, shallow and well drained." → "The soil consists of coarse -textured gravel or sand, and is shallow and well drained."
 * Link Greenland.
 * "Deserts are also classified by their geographical location and dominant weather pattern as trade wind" → "Deserts are also classified, according to their geographical location and dominant weather pattern, as trade wind"
 * "Tengger and Sonoran deserts." Capitalise "deserts".
 * "as Sandhills (Nebraska)" "as the Sandhills in Nebraska"
 * "Thus, during daylight, most of the sun's heat reaches the ground, and but as soon as the sun sets the desert cools quickly by radiating its heat into space."
 * "In hot deserts, the temperature in the during daytime can exceed 45 °C (113 °F) in the summer and dip plunge to below freezing point at night during in the winter."
 * The "ten largest deserts" table does not correspond to its source. The Thar desert is ranked 20th in according to Geology.com but is ranked 10th in the article. In addition, Geology.com and Target Study includes the Syrian desert whereas the article omits it entirely.
 * "on their size and density" The source also says shape. Likewise, with the phrase, "distances of thousands of kilometres (miles)", the source says 6,000 km.
 * There are various instances where alternative metric/imperial measurements are needed. "4,400 meters and is continuous above 5,600 meters".
 * You have not touched on desert farming. There are numerous sources for this industry, , ,
 * "they ate milk, blood"
 * "partly due to lower cloud cover." As compared to what? I would rephrase it as "partly due to a lack of cloud cover."
 * "covered in mirrors (used for solar energy) "
 * Delink Europe.
 * The "In literature" section appears to be a mishmash of random facts lacking consistent flow. Please give it a few tweaks. You could talk about the common themes that desert represent.
 * Is poetry not literature? Please merge "In poetry" into "In literature". You know what, I suggest you follow this layout with regard to the "Human relations" component of the article:
 * Renamed from "Mineral extraction"
 * Renamed from "Mineral extraction"
 * Renamed from "Mineral extraction"


 * The "In war" section has a Western bias, although I don't think you can do much about it. Also, add the link Desert warfare at the top.
 * Please go more into into the tactics of Desert warfare. I've got two sources, one talks about desert warfare in general, while another talks about the Desert Campaign during WWII. I've got several quotes from the latter, namely "Desert warfare has been described as a tactician's paradise and a quarter­master's nightmare", "Visibility was excellent, and there were few obstacles to impede advance." and "Ultimately, the victor would be the side that received the best supplies in the shortest time." One important quote from the former source can be "The key to success in desert operations is mobility." Another source that can be used is.
 * "In the First World War, the Ottoman Turks were defeated in a campaign that spanned the Arabian peninsula, fought by regular armies assisted on the British side by irregular Arab forces in the Arab Revolt of the Hejaz, made famous by T. E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom." → "In the First World War, the Ottoman Turks were engaged with the British regular army in a campaign that spanned the Arabian peninsula. The Turks were defeated by the British, who had the backing of irregular Arab forces that was seeking to revolt against the Turks in the Hejaz."
 * "began in Italian Libya".
 * Capitalise "allies".
 * "Deserts on other planets" has no references.
 * Additional comment
 * The lead should mention desert farming.
 * Added.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes wiseGeek a particularly reliable source?
 * I have replaced it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ISSNs could be added to FN 15, 16, 25, 32, 37, 38, 39, 50, 60, 66, 74, 84, 95, 98 and 107. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been involved in bringing 7 articles to FA and have never been asked to provide ISSN numbers before. Looking at earlier FN numbers on your list I could not find anything on ISSN for FN 15, and FN 16 has one already. However the numbers may no longer be relevant as I have made some changes to the article since you prepared the list. Your use of the word "could" implies that adding ISSNs is optional. I've added a few. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Sp33dyphil is doing a great job with this review, however, I also think it reasonable, given the nature of the article, for Cwmhiraeth to focus on good article properties. Sp33dyphil's information can still be used prior to FA nomination, if you go for it, and his/her comments show an understanding of asking more than is needed in a GA. Do what you can.. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC))


 * Image review
 * All images have the appropriate licenses.
 * Please rephrase the caption of the first photo. "Traditional concept of a desert: sand dunes in the Rub' al Khali ("Empty quarter") of the Arabian Peninsula; however, most deserts are rocky, not sandy"
 * With File:The Campaign in North Africa 1940-1943 E18467.jpg, please rephrase the caption to "Field gun firing at night in the decisive Second Battle of El Alamein, 1942"


 * Source review
 * FN 1: ISBN needs dashes. Check throughout article.
 * FN 2: Add author(s). Italicise title and the word "online". Non-standard date format. You might want to add a  template after the retrieval date.
 * FN 3: Replace the domain with "United States Geological Survey".
 * FN 4–7: The page parameters are not complete. I wouldn't provide a retrieval dates since these are books, but if you want to keep them, the date format would need to be standardised.
 * FN 6 and 7: You've provided a URL for these FNs, but not FN 1?
 * FN 9: FN needs to be filled out. The volume, the page number, the retrieval date could all be added.
 * FN 15: Italicise "USA Today".
 * FN 16: Add author. Add "Online" to "Encyclopedia Britannica" and italicise.
 * FN 21: Why is there a link to a glossary/dictionary? Looks odd.
 * FN 28: This is actually a part of a book titled "Global Alarm: Dust and Sandstorms from the World's Drylands". I would format it as . It has got no ISBN
 * FN 31: I cannot verify this phrase "and range in size between 1 and 200 kV/m." Please add PDF format parameter and pinpoint the page number.
 * FN 34: I would replace the current source with the more-professional.
 * FN 35–37: Besides the fact that FN 35 and 36 are duplications, and that IMDb should not be used as a reference, this appears to be OR, unless you can produce a third-party source that can back up your claim. I suggest you replace all three with  ("Many people think of deserts as blowing sand dunes because of how they are often depicted on TV and in movies.") and  ("Others think of a desert as a dry region covered with sand dunes").
 * FN 39, 43, and 75: Spell out USGS.
 * FN 40–42: The publisher is the US Army Corps of Engineers.
 * FN 44: Add "Online" to "Encyclopedia Britannica" and italicise.
 * FN 45: Dead link.
 * FN 47: This publication seems like a more professional replacement.
 * FN 49: Replace source with the much more-professional . I suspect Extremescience sourced its info from this particular article.
 * FN 51: This is the first time you've included the location of the publisher. Same deal with FN 109.
 * FN 57: It doesn't mention convergent evolution. Perhaps you could add this source that appears to be school work since it talks about convergent evolution. I'm not too fussed about this; however, definitely add PDF format.
 * FN 59: I have doubts about whether WordPress is such a good source to be used.
 * FN 63: Add publisher.
 * FN 70: Add full title.
 * FN 76: Replace current URL with http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Sci-Tech/Science-And-Environment/Head-of-Kibbutz-Movement-We-will-not-be-discriminated-against-by-the-government . It needs proper formatting.
 * FN 77: You could add the issue no. and ISSN. Could perhaps use the exact URL of the page instead of redirecting the reader to the TOC.
 * FN 80: You could probably use the original source that ArabSlaveTrade.com used, as the the website doesn't seem to be scholarly . It refers Felipe de Alencastro, and upon further investigation, he wrote about the slave trade in the Encyclopædia Universalis (2002), page 902.
 * FN 81: Please reformat the reference according to Template:Cite video.
 * FN 82: In FN 53, you spelled out the name.
 * FN 85: Please format the reference.
 * FN 87: Italicise work.
 * FN 88: Add and italicise National Renewable Energy Laboratory as work/publisher. I don't think SunLab would be the author.
 * FN 89: Appears to be dead. Could be formatted.
 * FN 90: Wrong title.
 * FN 91 and 92: Needs to be standardised and have all parameters filled out.
 * FN 93, 96 and 100: Missing work/publisher.
 * FN 94 and 95: Add pages.
 * FN 103: Missing ISBN.
 * FN 109: Remove "Ltd" from publisher.


 * May I beg to query this source review section? "[What the GA criteria are not]" includes "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" This appears to mean that many of the above comments on FN items are not material to the GA process, though undoubtedly vital at FA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now dealt with (I think) all the items included in the source review and this means that many of the FN numbers have changed. I will now move on to the other comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The article has done a great job explaining the physical geographic and biogeographic aspects of the the desert. However, I have misgivings about the exact definition of the desert, in particular the use of of the words "rainfall" and "precipitation", which are essential to the topic. This issue can be sorted out easily. However and more importantly as regard to whether the GA status could be attained or not, the article has not provided a broad coverage of the topic. It does not elaborate much on desert warfare and leaves out desert farming altogether – the "See also" section doesn't even have a link to that article. Solely because of the lack of coverage about desert farming, I think a quick-fail is applicable here. Please give me your thoughts on this particular matter. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have dealt with all the points you have raised above. In particular, I have added a section on Desert Farming and expanded the Desert Warfare section. I have also attended to the matters raised by AfadsBad and have been liaising with him on some of the points he makes. For example, I have rewritten parts of the section on weathering in accordance with more up-to-date research. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see Snowmanradio's concerns raised on the talk page about several omissions be addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with Snowman's concerns but think that kangaroos and elephants are not primarily desert creatures and their habits are beyond the scope of this article, in which the section on fauna is already large. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now added the kangaroo's methods of keeping cool. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by AfadsBad

I think this article is pretty good, but it has some major problems, too many and bad information. The most technical sections do not make sense in many places. For example,


 * "The humidity may be as low as 2 to 5% and because water vapour in the atmosphere acts to trap long wave infrared radiation from the ground, the cloudless desert sky is incapable of blocking sunlight during the day or trapping heat during the night."

Moves from low humidity, to water vapor trapping ground lwir, to a conclusion that the cloudless sky can't block sunlight or trap heat. This is all over the place, and what ir trapping has to do with anything is not explained.

The weathering section is based on outdated research. Rainfall is used where precipitation should be, snow is the only form of precipitation in some desrerts. The USGS reference is interpreted incorrectly, alluvial fans occur in all deserts, not just non-sandy ones. Same with aridisols, which are just arid land soils.

All cacti have not dispensed with leaves, check out Pereskia.

The CAM and C4 comment implies C4 plants open their stomata at night; they don't.

There are many other problems; here is one: "Most shrubs have spiny leaves and shed them in the coldest part of the year and in some areas, sagebrush covers 85% of the ground.[58]" The plant they are discussing with this area of coverage is Great Basin sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata, which is not a desert plant. It generally requires a rainfall slightly higher than the average desert in its range, and, therefore, doesn't cover 85% of the ground in deserts anywhere.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you have a source that says all cacti don't have leaves. If you do, you should not use it for anything. I suspect this article is read a lot. Leaving misinformation in at that level is bad for readers. Please don't add bad information or ask me to leave it, as I won't. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

This is something the article says about C4 plants in the desert:

"Their CO2-concentrating mechanism also allows C4 leaves to achieve higher photosynthetic rates at lower stomatal conductances than in C3 species, thereby conserving water in hot conditions when evaporative demand is high (reviewed Long 1999)."

It specifically does not compare C4 with CAM here because CAM plants do open their stomata at night. It is a good choice of article to use as a reference for Wikipedia because it is a review. However, I don't know who originally put this information in the Desert article, but to imply that a C4 plant opens its stomata at night requires the article to state that. This source does not say that. I have the article, so feel free to contradict me with a quote from the article, but don't reinsert this without a direct quote from the article. Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC))


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Second opinion?
I saw the second opinion request, but skimming the above, I'm having trouble finding the specific point a second opinion is needed on. Could this be clarified? If the point of contention is the reference formatting, I would second (or third, or whatever) those who have pointed out that this clearly isn't necessary for GA, though potentially helpful to take the article further. Thanks to everybody working on this huge and important topic. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Khazar2: Sorry for not clarifying my intentions. I simply wanted another reviewer to have a look at the article to see if I missed anything. According to Quadell, the article is good to go, meaning I covered all the GA criteria in my review. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Outside (3rd? 4th?) opinions from Quadell
 * Cwmhiraeth consistently goes the extra mile to bring troubled articles up to GA and FA status. (I'm currently reviewing his nomination of salt, and I've been involved with some of his nominations previously.) There have been times when an article needed so much work that I doubted anyone would be willing and able to make the necessary changes in a reasonable period of time, but Cwmhiraeth has always delivered. This seems to be the case here, where the reviewer initially suspected a quickfail was merited, only to find all (most? all?) of his objections dealt with.


 * Sp33dyphil's detailed review is a gold mine, and has helped improve the article dramatically. Not all of his objections have been strictly necessary for GA status (as others have pointed out), but all have been valuable opportunities for improvement. The issues that AfadsBad identified have also been valuable, and I'm gratified to see that they have been addressed.


 * As I read the current version of the article, nothing jumps out at me as falling short of the GA criteria. It's well-written and complies with the MoS, it's verifiable and well-sourced, it's both broad and focused, it doesn't have neutrality or stability problems, and the images are fine. If anyone wants to point out any weaknesses I may have missed, I'm sure Cwmhiraeth will deal with them forthwith... but I'd be inclined to promote it, personally. – Quadell (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quadell: I am grateful for your input. This has been my most comprehensive and penetrating GA review I have ever completed. It is good that Cwmhiraeth has persevered and addressed all the issues, big or small, I have raised. I also thank Snowmanradio and AfadsBad for lending their expertise and insight for this gargantuan topic and covering the areas where I have missed. I will have one last look at the article, especially the extra text that has been added during this GAN, before finishing the review. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)