Talk:Twyfelfontein

Stub classification
I have classified this article as a stub. It could be expanded by a section on the process of its nomination as a World Heritage Site. Capitalistroadster 03:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reclassified it as C after my expansion. The process of nomination is however still not in.--Pgallert (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Review
Pgallert asked for a review in regards to improvement of this article, so here goes.
 * Prose
 * Location and description: It is connected via road by the minor road D3214, the Twyfelfontein Country Lodge features a gravel airstrip. - semicolon
 * Lodge, camp site, the visitor's centre and most other tourist facilities are managed as a joint venture between the lodge owners and the Twyfelfontein-Uibasen Conservancy.[1] - The "Lodge, camp site" bit doesn't appear to math with the end of that phrase "most other tourist facilities", maybe it should be rephrased like this: The lodge, camp site, visitor's centre and most of the other tourist facilities..."
 * History: The oldest engravings might be as old as 10,000 years.[4] - Don't like how this is the transition from a mention of the hunter-gatherers to their artwork, maybe this should be tweaked or moved.
 * ''Discovery: White Lady is a disambiguation page, you are looking for The White Lady, as is Brandberg; you are looking for Brandberg, Namibia I believe.
 * Broad Concerns with Prose - Nothing too major.
 * 1. There is some overlinking in the Artworks section (rock art and hunter-gatherers are already linked earlier in the article, painting doesn't really need to be linked, human and animal also don't need to be linked) and in the Archaeology section (archaeology really doesn't need to be linked, either).
 * 2. The lead could be longer, if you include information about everything in the article that would be included in a basic, concise summary.


 * Comprehensiveness
 * I'm not sure the article is using all the sources it could be. I noticed that there are no books being cited, and a search at a local library or Google Books could be helpful. I found
 * this, :this, this, and some other 584 results by searching :Google Books here with the Full or preview only mode selected. Google Scholar also yielded some results.


 * Overall, I think the article needs some work in order to be ready for a good article nomination. It definitely looks good for what it has, though. It has lots of potential!

Hope I was helpful,  ceran  thor 19:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (partly cross-posting from User talk:Pgallert) Thanks, Ceranthor, I will work on the suggestions one by one (sorry for the stupid disambig links, I thought I got them all). There are a few more skeletons in this cupboard, let me just mention them:

--Pgallert (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the article clear enough on the different creators of the rock art? Hunter-gatherers made the petroglyphs, Bushmen made the pictograms.
 * 2) How should the creators of the pictograms be referred to? The common name is "Bushmen" but this term is regarded derogatory by this group. They would prefer to be called "San", but there is no WP article on San. The scientific term for the tribe is Khoikhoi, and for the language Khoekhoegowab, though Khoekhoe speakers refer to their language as "Damara" or "Damara/Nama".
 * 3) Is it a problem that red links occur, and that some of the blue links point to general concepts rather than the tourist sites referenced (Organ Pipes, Petrified Forest)?
 * 4) Any suggestion on how not to misrepresent the following fact (currently misleading in the article, I believe): The rocks at Twyfelfontein have been used as gong stones and bear according marks. The rocks at the nearby (Namibian) Organ Pipes could have been used as gong stones (they make a sound when hit) but there is no evidence they were. ✅ 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Should the lead still say "at least 2500 items" when there is a good reference that it is over 5000?
 * 6) Should the fact be included that some of the tourist graffiti on site are so old that they are regarded rock paintings in their own right? (This might just have brought the count to 5000)

Review concerns
I have now implemented the smaller improvement suggestions, except the lead. Also took a sample of the books but that was not very encouraging: Most of them are travel books or mirrors/overviews of already listed sources and wikipedia entries. Will make a turn at our library later. --Pgallert (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The walk to the library was not very fruitful but at least I got some additional info. Also expanded the lead. Awaiting criticism... Pgallert (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slightly late response. Seems to me like everything looks much-improved now, and I approve that it was sent to GAN. I think you should use your own judgment for the above points, as they're specific enough that they can be sorted out by you or by an expert on the subject. If you really want me to review them though, just tell me.  ceran  thor 23:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)