Talk:Cueva de las Manos

Magnin Citation

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)

Bahn

Tyrone, I'm finally able to have a look at the article. I think it's at B-class now and have updated the evaluations to that. The structure seems fine, and I don't see any major problems. I think a little clean up would be needed for GA -- I see an uncited sentence, for example, and a copyedit wouldn't hurt. For general background on prehistoric handprint art you might look at Paul Bahn's Images of the Ice Age; he only devotes four or five pages to them and doesn't mention this cave at all but for context you might find it useful. (I hadn't realized how common prehistoric handprints were.) Otherwise I think you've covered the areas I would expect to see covered. I can't speak to how complete it is, as I'm unfamiliar with the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thanks! Is this enough to leave a template on or bother the Guild of Copyeditors over? I'll check to see if Images of the Ice Age is in my local library. Which section do you think might benefit most from the book in terms of context and everything else?

The unfamiliarity with the sources is to be expected. The sources are eclectic—mostly EBSCO, Gale, ProQuest, and some Google Scholar and Google Books results—so sifting through and verifying them will indeed be hard (unless someone has an institutional account that can help them with paywall).

What one will find, however, when looking at sources is that there's a massive conspiracy-style citation web where it all ties back to Carlos Gradín, Ian Wainwright, Carlos Aschero, Ana Aguerre, María Onetto, and María Mercedes Podestá, but most of all Gradín. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Initial review

Tyrone, 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)

Atsme, I've added a Notes section, and am also ready to continue the review. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Deleted contradictory statement on depth

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)

AmE and BrE

I noticed some inconsistency over metres and meters. 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 treatment – I really do mean a quick look.) Furthermore, regional ties seem to me to make it more likely that AmE is right – and, 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)

Thank you for your help, DBaK. 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)

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)

That helps. Sounds pretty well-reasoned out to me :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Should I include information about Ghost Hands?

The cave was an inspiration for a popular children's book titled Ghost Hands. More information about it can be found in the work:
Loomis, Jenna (Fall 2018). ""People did great things with their hands": Telling Stories to Engage with Culture". WOW Stories. Enhancing Experiences with Global Picturebooks by Learning the Language of Art. VI (1). Worlds of Words: Center for Global Literacies and Literatures (University of Arizona). ISSN 2577-0551.
Is it worthy of mention in the article? Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

DBaK, Added it in. Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice one! I'm trying to get hold of a copy ... cheers DBaK (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cueva de las Manos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Pinging @Tyrone Madera: as requested. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual process with GA reviews, I'm going to go through and make prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If you disagree with any changes I make, just let me know and we can discuss. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Done. Pass on prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass - no issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass - well-referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Under "Cultural context", the first sentence seems to be supported by source 20, but I can't see anything in source 39 that explicitly states that little is known about this cave's creators. Pass, issue addressed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues found by earwig or in manual spot-check of 15 sources. AGF for the rest. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think some of the material from 'Studies and preservation' should be moved to 'History', or perhaps the two sections could be combined altogether. You could make 'studies and preservation' a subsection. Otherwise the History section cuts off quite abruptly in 1941. The coverage is fairly comprehensive, but this organizational change would improve comprehension. Addressed. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass - no issues with stability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	It's unclear to me that File:RioPinturas-003.jpg is freely available. The description "selbst fotografiert" suggests it was taken by the uploader, but that's not explicitly claimed and the information needs to be formatted properly on Commons. Similarly File:SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210063b.jpg is probably ok but not formatted correctly on Commons. Issues addressed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In the guanaco picture, "Monte Leon fm. (Oligocene-Miocene)" is confusing. "fm." is "formation"? It's unclear why geologic information is included at all. The caption can be shortened and made more relevant to the text, which involves the hunting of guanacos, not the local geology. Why is the Canyon image placed under Stylistic Group C? It fits better earlier in the article, say under "Location" - could be placed on the left side of the page to avoid crowding. Other than that images and captions look good. Issues addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi Ganesha811! I've reformatted File:RioPinturas-003.jpg & File:SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210063b.jpg on their respective commons pages to make them compliant. The guanaco picture's caption has also been shortened, and the Canyon image placed under Stylistic Group C has now been moved to be left-aligned under "Location". Hope this helps! Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, You're right, source 39 is by and large implicit. It says things like "little is known about early American art." I have removed it. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: unless you have any objections to the prose tweaks I made, I'd say this passes GA review! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, No objections. Thank you! Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Hands, at Cueva de las Manos

• ... that of the hundreds of hands stenciled at Cueva de las Manos as artwork (pictured), very few show a right hand? Source: "Cueva de las Manos . . . yielded counts of 329 left hands to 31 right ones" ([1])
  • ALT1:... that the artwork at Cueva de las Manos (pictured) was first created between 13,000 and 9,500 years ago? Source: "The Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas, contains an exceptional assemblage of cave art, executed between 13,000 and 9,500 years ago." ([2])

Improved to Good Article status by Tyrone Madera (talk). Self-nominated at 02:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC).

• The lead states: "The art in the cave dates to between 11,000 to 7,000 BC". That’s a 500 years discrepancy with ALT1. Schwede66 07:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Schwede66, I've fixed the discrepancy. Thanks for pointing that out! Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The picture and the hooks are hooky and the hook is referenced to a reliable source. The article is a GA so fine for length and dozens of references. Its neutral and interesting. The image is not only fine, its a featured image. No sign of close paraphrasing and the sources look good. Nice article and contribution by Tyrone. Good to go. Victuallers (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

T:DYK/P1

Pre-FAC comments

Hi there, I'll start adding some comments here, currently busy with FAC reviews, but here's something to start with. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• The notes should also have citations.

• Done

• There are some WP:duplinks, they can be highlighted with this[3] script.

Thanks! Just the note on bolas or are the other notes in need of citations too? I'm not seeing the WP:duplinks, so I might be missing something. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Strange, did you install the script? Deseado and cave paintings are also duplinked it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I tried to install the script. I probably did something wrong. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk, Nevermind, I got the script running and eliminated all duplinks. Going to cite the bolas footnote next—which I presume is what you were referring to by notes having citations. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice, I will also continue soon. What I mean is stuff like "although this is largely unproven", which does not have a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've just removed the uncited clause. It seems needless to say that any particular theory of origin is unproven when there is no proven theory of origin (yet) in the first place. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

it's impossible to prove the purpose of art if you can't ask the artist   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

And it's not really about whether something is obvious or not, the matter is whether we have a source that supports a statement here specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember reading in Jean Clottes' book that "we will never know the origins of this art" or something along those lines, which would be in support. I also remember an author, perhaps Orquera or Aschero, stating that this theory is the most unlikely.

I could dig through the existing sources to support the statement if it's worthwhile. I was about to do just that when I had the thought that it would be redundant, given that it was already a footnote, and more worth my time to remove it. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's worth the effort for FAC, at least, not so much GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk and Dunkleosteus77: I've just elaborated on this in the purpose section. None of the sources state that this theory is unproven, so it turns out that I was right in removing that clause. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Why is "precordilleran steppe" in italics?

• Done. Removed italics

• Link hunter-gatherer in intro and article body?

• Done

• Since the article is also about the cave itself, can we get some geological info about it? Consider you were to write an article about the cave even if there was no cave art in it. How old is it, what kind of rocks does it consist of, any other interesting aspects of it.

• Will get on that. Thank you both for your help finding the information. Done

• If you want group images more effectively, and perhaps add more, you could use the multiple image templates, like for example in flora of Madagascar or quagga. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Added template from flora of Madagascar. Where should I put a new image grouping?

Just in any ways that don't make the images/image galleries clump together. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected it so that the images/image galleries no longer clump together. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Hands, at the Cave of the Hands" Perhaps add the word "stenciled" to the caption?

• I don't know. I'll give it a try and we can see how it looks. Done.

• Link puma and fox.

• Done

• " Francisco Mena states in "...[in the]" Do you need the first "in"?

• Done

• You could present Francisco Mena, Carlos Gradin, and other persons mentioned by occupation.

• Carlos Gradin's occupation is already mentioned. Do you mean stuff like "Dr." "M.D." and the like? Added occupation of Francisco Mena. Should I also introduce Fanning et al. & Wainwright et al. in this way? Also, should I also introduce T. A. Barron and William Low by profession?

Any info (and links) in the intro should also be added to the article body, including such presentations. Yeah, probably best to be consistent in how you introduce people. You also only give nationality for some. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I'm having a hard time finding everyone's profession. An example is Fanning. Should I give it up or switch gears? Maybe scrap titles altogether? Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Specific titles like Dr. are not needed, you can use very general occupations like historian, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk, Done. All people except for Barron and Low have occupations, and I listed Fanning's occupation as 'scholar'. I didn't give occupations for Barron and Low because I wasn't sure if that was necessary, however. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The site was last inhabited around 700 AD" When is the earliest evidence from?

• The earliest evidence of inhabitation is from 11,000 to 7,500 BC, from the paintings. Should I write that in?

I think so. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Father Alberto Maria de Agostini first wrote about the site in 1941" The paintings only or the cave as a whole? If the former, you could give some info about the modern history of the cave complex itself, if there is any.

• I have not been able to access Father Agostini's work at this time, so I do not know how broad his writings were. Is the reference desk worth a shot? It's both paywalled and in a non-English language.

WP:RX is definitely worth a try, I couldn't have written many of my FAs without it. And seems that is an essential source to cite here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have left a request at WP:RX. Fingers crossed. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link national monument?

• Done

• "Herd of guanacos in Santa Cruz, Argentina" Could perhaps be interesting to juxtapose this image with the cave art that shows them?

• Done

• What are these objects[4][5], and would they be relevant to show? I think you could mabe have a multiple image gallery showing the various individual symbols close up that are found at the site. Including a close up of hands:[6]

• [7] is a spiral alongside no idea what kind of animal it is and [8] is a depiction of a lizard, which might be relevant. I've added the lizard image.

• All three are now in a gallery by the art section. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

As it turns out, the animal is a guanaco. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link totemic.

• Done Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The oldest-known cave paintings in South America are contained within the cave" What is the next oldest?

I've found out that ranking the oldest to youngest cave paintings is actually rather tricky, because of the margin of error when dating them. This diff ([9]) is the best response I have found to this question. The source, however, says with certainty that the ones in Cueva de las Manos are the oldest. Do you think that this claim should be modified in light of this? If so, what would be the best way to do that? Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The best way to deal with inconsistencies is just to say "some author's, such as x and x, have stated it is the oldest" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps say "and colleagues" instead of "et al.", to make the text more layman friendly. You could also give year dates for such statements.

• Done. Replaced "et al." with "and colleagues" and dated group statements with the year. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link names and other terms at first mention in image captions too.

• Done

naturalistic depiction of a smile

• "The works in the cave can be described as naturalistic" In what sense? It all seems very stylised?

• They are naturalistic in the sense that they are actively shown to appear as the subject would have looked in real life, rather than resorting to simple abstractions. Stylization occurs more over time, which reduces image complexity to accommodate a more representational method of depiction than a realistic one. I have clarified this in the text. An emoticon, for example, is more stylized () whereas a painting like File:SUN-KISSED SMILE - OIL PAINTING BY RAJASEKHARAN.jpg is more naturalistic. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "(possibly made from a bird bone)" But earlier you say spray pipes are known, so shouldn't we know the material?

We know that it's made from a bone, but we don't know what kind. Just updated the text to reflect this. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link or explain palimpsest? No idea what it is.

• Done. Linked. Tyrone Madera (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "superimpositioned masses of images" Should this be "superimposed"?

• Done Tyrone Madera (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "That so many people contributed to the artwork for thousands of years suggests the cave held great significance for the artists who painted on its walls.[5] The fact that a large number of people gathered in one place to contribute to the rock art for such a long period, shows a large cultural significance, or at least usefulness,[b] to those who participated.[5]" These two sentences seem to almost say the same, merge somehow?

• I've had the same idea, but I don't know how best to execute it. Considering your recommendation to include footnote b into the main text, could this perhaps be its own paragraph, with the first and last sentences serving as introduction and conclusion sentences? That way the elaboration of the footnote could serve as the body of the paragraph, explaining the two sentences. Thoughts? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears this was dealt with? FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "which is primarily made up of Ochre" Ochre shouldn't be capitalised.

• Done

• " A1 (Ochre series), which is primarily made up of Ochre and some red; A2 (Black series), which is predominantly black but also contains some dark purple; A3 (Red series) which primarily incorporates red; A4 (Purplish/Dark Red series), which uses purplish red and dark red; and A5 (White/Yellow series)" If these series names are proper names, "Series" should also be capitalised?

• The authors of the cited text doesn't capitalize series, so I'm unsure. Is it better to change it or to have faith in their publishing process? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, just do like the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Resolved. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "uses the color white" White (as well as black and grey) are technically not colours.

• Are they pigments then? The article on white describes it as a color, so I'm at a loss. Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems there are varying views on this[10], so not important to deal with here after all. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "some more rare motifs" Rarer would be simpler?

• Done. Changed to rarer

• "group B was born" a bit odd wording, "emerged" instead?

• Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrone Madera (talk • contribs) 05:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "A new cultural group, entering the scene before 5,000 BC, until around 1,300 BC, created the art of what is now considered stylistic groups B" So we can assume earlier populations influenced the later populations with their artwork? Any discussion in the sources about this?

@FunkMonk: I've found information about how stylistic group A influenced later styles of cave art and incorporated this into the article. I presume this is what you were talking about? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk, found discussion of it in the sources and incorporated it into the body. I've expanded on this and the topic of collective memory significantly in the culture section. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could maybe be good if the Stylistic groups contained labeled image examples of each group?

• Done. Added example images of each group. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "popular children's book Ghost Hands" Give date.

• Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrone Madera (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "written by T. A. Barron and illustrated by William Low" Why only spell out one full name?

• T. A. Barron is the common name for that author. Should I spell it out in this case? Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't think it can hurt, will look more consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think you could add more about how it is run as a tourist site. Is it run by the state, or privately? How many visitors annually? Are there tourist facilities around it? So on.

• Only facility I can think of is the guide shed. The site is publicly owned as part of a park, but it was privately owned. Don't know how to phrase it for the article quite yet, however. Tyrone Madera (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added who owns and runs the sites and the number of tourist visits per year. What kind of details are you looking for in terms of tourist facilities and other stuff? The cave is in the middle of nowhere with no amenities except perhaps a distant hotel. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If that's all you can find, that should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the above info and what is now under Threats to conservation may be more relevant in a dedicated section about tourism, or maybe just move it to Cultural impact. Could perhaps be renamed to something more inclusive, Cultural significance? Now it seems tourism is only discussed as a threat, which is a bit misleading, no?

@FunkMonk: Would this section on tourism fall underneath Cultural significance? I'm a bit confused about your proposed restructuring, although I would be happy to implement it. The conservation and tourism aspects are intrinsically bound, so separating them might be difficult. The titles above don't seem to fit very well with the subject. Would you agree that talking about conservation efforts as part of a cultural significance section might seem a bit odd for readers? Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the two subjects are written in a very intertwined way, perhaps call the section "Cultural significance and conservation" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk, Done. What do you think? Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think footnote b is significant enough to be included in the main text, perhaps elaborate even more on the interesting points it mentions.

@FunkMonk: Done. I've incorporated footnote B into the text and elaborated more on the various hypothesis in the purpose section. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice, a few further comments above and below. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• You give various length and degree measurements, should probably include unit conversion templates.

Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's discouraged to present people using titles like "Dr.".

Removed. Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is some repetition in how you describe the paintings were returned to and were influential for the people throughout many thousands of years, perhaps check if someone of it can be consolidated or made less similar.

Addressing this has proved to be personally harder than I anticipated, so I plan to wait for the upcoming copyedit to hopefully help sort this out. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why the first image is so smaller than the rest? Perhaps you could give it more of its own space if you moved the following image of the cave entrance into a gallery with the other photo further below that shows the entrance?

Changed the images around. What do you think now? Would you still suggest putting the second image into a gallery? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• At FAC you'll be asked to standardise how you format your citations, I can see now some use full names others don't, for example, and there also seem to be inconsistencies in date formatting, so check them all for inconsistencies.

FunkMonk, Are you okay with helping me to enforce a standard? I feel like I could use some assistance with this part. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Mike recommended a good tool below. Source formatting isn't really my area of expertise. Other changes look good. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, sounds good. I'm taking full advantage of the tool. Thank you for your help! Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Dates have been standardized. Some individual names have been standardized as well. Experiencing difficulties acquiring some full names, as they are only initialized in some publications. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is possible that image reviwers will ask you to add public domain licence templates for the artworks regardless of their obvious age, so probably good to get this done prior to nomination.

Hahaha, which template would you recommend for something so obviously old? The author died 1,000 years ago? (haha). Should I go with anonymous creator presumed dead? Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Something like the PD 100 template you see here:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk, Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• All in all, I think it's a very attractive article, and I should be ready to support at FAC once the last issues are dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I would add, though, that since one seminal source on the topic, the book you mentioned earlier, is not used as a source, it is possible someone will bring this up as a comprehensiveness issue at FAC. If you have no luck at WP:RX, it could perhaps be worth getting it through an interlibrary loan or buying it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, still waiting for WP:RX to come through on that one. Considering using the reference desk to see if they could provide any recommendations for secondary works on the book that I might have access to. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I usually list articles at WP:copy edit requests prior to FAC, and while not required, it usually helps the prose. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've left a request per your recommendation. This process usually takes a month according to the page. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Corrections/responses

• 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? [12] is a spiral alongside no idea what kind of animal it is and [13] 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)

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)

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus knows where to find info about caves, having worked on other geological articles? FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

this briefly talks about the formation of the canyon just glossing over it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you! I've added the necessary information on the cave. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

Also remember to request any paywalled paper found here that looks usable:[14] FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dunkleosteus77, 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)

Should I incorporate the following paragraph from the Pinturas River Canyon article into this one? It goes like this:

The areas between 400 and 500 metres above sea level formed a microclimate in which the canyon was home to grasslands hospitable to the animals that lived in it. This microclimate included schinus molle plant, which was useful to native inhabitants for it's ability to form resins and adhesives, as well as its use as as a source of firewood. The climate was also home to edible vegtables and plants that could be used for medicine; tubers, such as the rush root; and numerous fruits, such as that of the berberis plant.

Thank you for your help, Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also, I've expanded on the section on stylistic group A. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

References

Reference formatting

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Copyedit and pre-FAC review

I have more time today than I expected so I should be able to complete a copyedit, and I'll do a pre-FAC review as well. I'll leave notes here as I go through. If you disagree with any of my copyedits, feel free to revert them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "there are three main access points to the cave: Estancia Cueva de las Manos, from Bajo Caracoles, and a midway access road between the two points": I initially read this to mean that Estancia Cueva de las Manos was the first access point, and it was reached from Bajo Caracoles -- not until I reached the end of the sentence did I realize that Bajo Caracoles was a separate access point. I think cutting "from" would fix this, unless there's some subtlety I'm missing.

  Honestly, I feel the same way when re-reading. I've cut the "from" because I absolutely agree with you that it was confusing. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• More generally, does this access paragraph repeat itself? I.e. you list the three access points in the sentence I just quoted, but then apparently give an independent list that doesn't quite match.

  Looking over your question, I seem to be having the same question myself. I feel like this is the part of the article that I have had the least hand in. Are you able to get access to the sources that are listed? It seems that there is some reconciliation that may need to be done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  I can't access any of them. Do you have access to any of them? It does really look like repetitition; I think it would be best to get a copy of the Tang paper from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if you don't have it, and you could try asking there for the Patagonia guides as well -- or you might find one in a bookstore or library near you, or even order one online -- I see a secondhand copy of the 2014 Bernhardson on sale for $1.45. I think this does need to be resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have access right now. I would need to check out Bernhardson and Albiston et al. from the library. Even so, I'm not sure how best to reconcile/combine the sources. For that matter, even if I had all three sources in front of me, I'm not confident that I would know the best way to do so, given that I wrote the section with access to all the cited sources. As for Tang, on the other hand, a large part of one of the citations is quoted at this Reference desk post. Would it be alright with you if I sent you some of the sources? This would ensure that we could review the same reference material together at the same time. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, no problem, but I would like to have all the sources if possible, unless you think we can cut some of them. If you do end up going to the library I think you can probably just snap a picture of the relevant page or two with your phone, plus a picture of the copyright/title pages if it's not the same edition already cited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've sent you the materials. They are the same editions and everything. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Also, the Jin Bo citation isn't important (it just supports Ruta 40) so I left it out. Moreover, if you look at the artice, one of the Moon Travel citations is actually an archived webpage link, which is different from the Moon Travel book, so be wary of that. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  OK, having looked at the sources you sent I think I understand what they're saying. First, Bernhardson refers to RP 41 from Bajo Caracoles; if you zoom in on Google Maps and look at the roads leaving Bajo Caracoles, the road he's referring to is initally labeled "39" and then "97"; it goes all the way to the visitors' centre. I had a look on the Spanish Wikipedia to see if I could find an explanation for the difference in road number, but couldn't find anything. Then (p. 384) he mentions a route from Estancia Cueva de las Manos, which I can't find on Google Maps but which must be further north on route 40. I can see a trailhead a couple of kilometres from the cave on Google Maps, northeast of the cave, above the cliff, but that gravel road joins route 40 further north than Bernhardson indicates. Finally, there is a shorter road that joins 97 from route 40 -- again you can see it on Google Maps by zooming in and scanning to the west of the cave and a little south.

  The Estancia Bernhardson mentions appears to be a hotel that is apparently now defunct, or at least the website is. I found it on archive.org (https://web.archive.org/web/20131212164321/http://www.cuevadelasmanos.net/ubicacion.php here]) and it seems to indicate that the hotel is not far from -47.0195436063265, -70.69313294746624 coordinates, which is labeled as "Acceso No 1 a Cueva de las Manos" on Google Maps. So either the hotel is down that track somewhere (I can't see it) or on route 40 near there (and I can't see a building around there either).

  So Bernhardson seems to be definitely wrong with his "23 kilometers north" for the Estancia. I would say all this means we should drop Bernhardson -- he has the distance wrong and he doesn't mention RN 40 at all. I would go with the less detailed but more accurate Lonely Planet Argentina guide, and say something like: "There are three gravel roads that lead to the site: a 46 km route from the south, starting near Bajo Caracoles, and two more further north: a 28 km route from RN 40, and a 22 km route that ends with a 4 km foot trail." Looking at the maps it would have been possible to be clearer than this but I don't think the sources permit it.

  I did look at the web link you included but it disagrees on the distance again on one of the routes, and again doesn't make it clear that the routes start from RN40, and again refers to the Estancia which I can't locate. There is a Hotel Cuevas de las Manos but that's in a nearby town; I am also seeing references to a Hosteria Cuevas de las Manos but I can't find a map showing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing all of that research! So, am I correct in saying that you think we shouldn't use Bernhardson (and Moon Publications for that matter) as a source for the access section? If so, you are definitely correct in that this simplifies things.

  Looking at the maps it would have been possible to be clearer than this but I don't think the sources permit it. Maps can be sources too, right? Couldn't we use a published road map of the area as a source? Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  There's a risk of OR using maps, but it's certainly possible. However, I think simplifying it is fine -- does the reader really need all the details? Knowing that there are three ways to reach the site seems enough to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Copy that, good to know. Fair point, will leave it at the current level of detail. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  I've implemented the recommended changes. Let me know if there's anything wrong/missing. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Staff archaeologist Francisco Mena": What does "staff" refer to here? And does it matter? Can we just say "Archaeologist Francisco Mena"?

  "Staff" archaeologist just refers to his published job title. I have removed the staff part, as it doesn't really matter and you are correct that we can just say "Archaeologist Francisco Mena". Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "These camp sites would also be where the hunting and gathering resources of the groups were kept together, serving as facilitators for the group hunting of guanacos": I didn't want to edit this without having access to the source, but if I understand it it's a complicated way to say make a fairly simple point. Would the source support rewriting this as "The groups that gathered at these camp sites would have enabled the inhabitants to organize group hunting of guanacos"?

  I've sent you the aforementioned section of the source. The cited section can be found on page 313. Hopefully this helps! Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I made the change -- the source does support it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would also bring back the part about the camps serving as aggregation sites for resources, that "hunting and gathering resources of the groups were kept together", since this also seems relevant. Perhaps it should be split off from the original into a separate sentence from the existing one? Right now the paragraph mentions how the campsites were used for the gathering of Paleo-Indians but not how they served as resource gathering sites as well. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the source really supports more than we have now. The source says "...such aggregation camps. They facilitated the collective hunts of guanaco, in which animals were intercepted and driven into gorges..." I think this simply means that the camps facilitated the hunts because a large group of people could collect together, not that any resource other than people was collected. Or are you referring to another part of the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  The source also says on the same page (p. 313) that "These aggregation camps were places (sensu Ingold 2000) where the best resources for hunting and gathering were concentrated." I think this means that the camps were not only for the gathering of human resources, but also other kinds of resources that would assist in hunting and gathering as well. Otherwise, wouldn't the authors have just used a synonym for "people" instead of the broad term "resources"? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, fair point. I had a look through the Ingold paper referenced and I see what they're saying, but I wish they'd used a word more definite than "resource". I hate including things in an article that I don't feel I could fully explain to a reader, and here I don't think I could clearly explain what Aschero and Schneier are saying. I find that I'm having trouble avoiding a close paraphrase, it sometimes means I can't paraphrase because I don't understand, and here our inability to avoid the word "resource" seems a problem. Aschero and Schneier are specific about the topography, which featured natural traps. Would that specific point suffice if we used it as an example, and let us avoid a vague general statement? E.g. we could make it "The groups that gathered at these camp sites would have enabled the inhabitants to organize group hunting of guanacos, and the area featured natural traps into which guanaco could be driven during hunts". Although looking through page 313 of the source I see these comments apply to a group of rock art sites, not just to this one, so we ought to reflect that in the article text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I relate to that problem of trying to paraphrase when it's not entirely clear what the author meant. I also find those circumstances difficult because it's hard to stay true to the source and still sound coherent without paraphrasing too closely. Sometimes this results in the necessity to create awkward syntax restructurings as part of the process. But I digress.

  I'm up for mentioning the other sites, but it might be better to mention them in a footnote so as to not distract from the main focus of the article (unless they are directly relevant). What do you think? Also, perhaps the mention of natural traps would pair better with the sentence on game drives, given how the natural topography played such a key role in this particular system of hunting?

  I took resources to include the things that could be hunted and gathered/created by the Paleo-Indians mentioned earlier in the article (e.g. vegetables, game, weapons). I came to this conclusion through process of elimination: only human resources (already mentioned) and things that people could carry could be gathered around campsites. Since the authors already mentioned human "resources", would those types of resources make for better examples than the topography of the canyon (which would probably be difficult to store at a campsite)? We could use the example of bolas and perhaps food for long journeys. This might let us use specific examples, since we already know some of the resources being used by inhabitants.

  Also, which database did you use to view the Ingold paper (if any)? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  The Ingold paper is here; I found it via Google Scholar. It's not the source you cite, and the title has a tiny difference, so I was concerned it was not the same paper, but after trying to find citations to Ingold's papers to see if there were two, I convinced myself it's the same one, just republished. Re your point about a footnote -- how much do we need to go into detail here anyway? The point of the discussion of the landscape is the relationship to the art. The current sentence talks about the way a larger group of hunters could hunt guanacos more effectively, but what are we trying to convey that's relevant to this article? Should we instead have a sentence pointing out that there's a relationship between the surrounding landscape and what is depicted, and then give a specific example, such as the natural traps, and drop the mention of groups? Or if we include the groups, tie them directly to sourced statements making that connection? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for dropping that link; I just found the same copy on JSTOR as well and had similar thoughts. Re "how much do we need to go into detail here anyway?" I really don't know. Probably as much as the people at FAC would like (I have no experience in this, however).

  The group hunting sentence is in the history section, so I'm not sure we need to tie everything directly to the art. The point of this section I believe is indeed partly to explain how the cave became what it is today, but it is also to explain how the people who inhabited the area lived and what they did. To that end, this is what we are trying to convey that's relevant to this article.

  I think it's a good idea, as you said, to have a sentence pointing out that there's a relationship between the surrounding landscape and what is depicted, and then give a specific example, such as the natural traps. However, I think mentioning the groups as is currently described might be best, as separate sentences, and perhaps just drop in a mention of group hunting earlier in the section to compliment it. Perhaps the sentence you just mentioned could be added to the existing material, instead of replacing it?

  In all honesty, if we are going to drop anything, I think that the part about aggregation of other resources (the inclusion of which is what started this discussion, ironically) would be the first thing that I would drop. Reading over it again, mentioning that natives would gather "resources" around campsites doesn't really seem all that helpful to the reader. Thoughts? Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree -- can you go ahead and make that change? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  I just gave it my best shot. Did I capture the agreed upon changes properly? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why do we need to know the altitude ranges for the three sub-areas of the nomadic circuit? I see that the birth pattern of guanacos varies by altitude, but surely we could just saying that these biomes had "varying altitudes" or something like that? If we do need to keep it, I'd switch the first range to "500 and 700" since it's usual to have ranges given with the smaller number first. And it might go better in a footnote.

  I moved it into a footnote. Better? Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that works. I don't think you need it, but it's OK having it in a footnote -- my objection was that it needlessly disrupted the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  If worse comes to worse, it can be deleted easily at FAC. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The main cave is about 20 m (66 ft) deep, and is composed of the cave itself, two outcroppings, and the walls at either side of the entrance." I don't follow this. The outcroppings are considered to be part of the cave? Do you mean they are considered to be part of the site Cueva de las Manos -- in the sense of the location of the art?

  I guess I was just trying to list each part of the cave area. I did mean that they are considered to be part of the site of Cueva de las Manos, in the sense of the location of the art. I suppose I broke the different parts into components of the cave itself when it didn't need to be stated that way. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  I changed it to "The site is composed of the cave itself, which is about 20 m (66 ft) deep, and two outcroppings, and the walls at either side of the entrance", based on your reply. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Some scholars, such as Ralph Crane and Lisa Fletcher, have stated that the oldest-known cave paintings in South America are contained within the cave": I copyedited this a bit from your wording, but looking at the source citation I am wondering if it supports "some scholars". Does the source say that scholars other than Crane and Fletcher have said this?

  I added in "Some scholars" on suggestion, and really intended a very narrow interpretation in that instance. I don't know how to phrase it differently. The source only supports those two authors I believe. The topic of "oldest" cave art is complex and enigmatic in nature. The first word "some" is intended more as a limiting qualifier than a generalized statement. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'd suggest "Scholars Ralph Crane and Lisa Fletcher assert that the rock art at Vueva de las Manos includes the oldest-known cave paintings in South America." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Changed the sentence to that. Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The artwork decorates the interior of the cave and also the surrounding cliff faces and exterior": what does "exterior" refer to if not the cliff face?

  In this case, "exterior" is a catch-all term and can be removed. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Do we need to say that the authenticity has been verified? The very next sentence talks about radiocarbon dating; doesn't that make the same point?

  I suppose the better way to phrase it, in the words of one of the sources, would be that it is "unquestionable". The aim of the sentence is not just to say that the artwork is proven to be authentic, but that it has been demonstrated as such is beyond a shadow of a doubt. That it is authentic is beyond any possible speculation, to paraphrase (perhaps redundantly). Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's unnecessary. Having radiocarbon dates to support it seems like a very solid verification to me. FunkMonk, what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether radiocarbon dating is the only method used to verify it (in which case it's probably redundant), but if more methods have been used, I think this should be stated. But how does the source used phrase this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The source used states:

The authenticity of the pictorial sequence has also been verified by careful research studies which considered the stylistic characteristics of the paintings, the superimpositions observed and the chemical composition of the pigments. Microscopic and chemical analysis carried out by two laboratories – one of them the Analytical Research Laboratory of the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI), Ottawa, allowed us to confirm the authenticity of the paintings of Cueva de las Manos (Iñiguez & Gradin 1977, Wainwright et al. 2002).

— María Onetto and María Mercedes Podestá, Cueva de las Manos: An Outstanding Example of a Rock Art Site in South America

The UNESCO page states that: "The authenticity of the rock art of the Cueva de los Manos is unquestionable." Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Schobinger also references stratigraphic methods of authentication. He also mentions stratigraphic methods used as part of the dating process, including using a piece of the rock wall that had fallen down in order to date the artwork. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

How about reorganizing that paragraph to add the one method given by Onetoo and Podestá that you haven't already mentioned (review of stylistic characteristics and superimposition) and then finishing the paragraph with the conclusion about authenticity? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Might need some cleanup, however. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I shortened what you had -- I don't think we need to mention UNESCO inline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming it. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• "This narrative played out between each scene as they were viewed by visitors." I don't understand this. (And if we keep it, it should probably be rephrased as the previous sentence uses "play out" as well.)

  This was an attempted paraphrase of Aschero & Schneier (2021), pp. 324–325. It's attempting to essentially state that as you view each painting it creates a sort of narrative story in the mind of the viewer. I've sent you the pages so you can look them over. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think you could cut it -- the previous sentence does a good job of capturing the "social memory" aspects discussed by the source, and I don't think this sentence adds anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Alright, I'll cut it. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "although some findings have suggested": is "finding" the right word here? A finding is a definite result. Should this be something like "some research has suggested"?

  If a finding is a definite result, then this is definitely a better way to phrase it. I've changed the text to that of your suggestion. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Significant research and archaeology on the rock art of the cave": I think we can drop "significant" unless we're distinguishing classes of research here.

  Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reading through the stylistic groups section it's apparent that art continued to be made until around 700 AD. This is in conflict with statements earlier in the article that the art was created between 11,000 and 7,500 BC. Should the earlier statements say "began to be created"? Or -- now that I see that 7,300 is about the date of the earliest art -- it looks like I misread it, and when the date range 11,000 to 7,500 BC is given, what was meant was that it was at the end of that date range that the art began to be created?

  I experienced the same confusion when working with this article. At one point article used to read "began to be created" but then that was revised out. I wouldn't mind putting that back in. Otherwise, wrapping your head around this is difficult. Also, the end of the 11,000 to 7,500 BC date range does not necessarily mark the beginning of the art. I highly recommend reading the UNESCO page and then the Adoranten article and comparing and contrasting the dates for reference. Otherwise, this is fairly hard to reconcile/explain. Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think this is still a problem, mainly because the UNESCO page flatly contradicts the article -- it says 13,000 BP but Onetto and Podestá (citing Gradin) say the art starts 9300 BP. I think you have a couple of choices here. You can either give both date ranges, pointing out the conflict as you did with the climate data, or you could ignore the UNESCO page as it is not a scientific source, and you have multiple sources for the 9300 BP date -- Onetto and Podestá, who back up Gradin. I would go with the latter option since the UNESCO page is internally inconsistent -- under the "Brief synthesis" section it says "executed between 9,300 and 1,300 years ago". I don't know what that 13,000 date is doing at the top of that page but I think we can ignore it so long as we don't cite that page for the dates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, that 1,300 years part threw me for a loop. At first I thought it was a typo of 13,000 years, and they just put the comma in the wrong place and forgot a zero, but now I'm not so sure. I think I'll footnote the UNESCO part since it's a major source. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

   Done Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The layering has a cycle in it which doesn't seem to make sense: A2 covers A1 which covers A4 which covers A2. Is this an accurate reflection of the sources? Do they comment on this? I noticed because I was wondering if one could conclude the relative age of the art from the sequence, but obviously this is not possible if the sequence is correct as given. Do they conclude that A5 is the most recent?

  I added a sentence on the chronology. Hopefully this helps. This an accurate reflection of the sources, and they conclude that A5 is the most recent. I recommend reading the cited pages. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Can you pinpoint the citation for "A1 layers over A4"? That would imply A4 is older than A1, which is supposed to be the oldest. I can't see a citation for that in the pages given and I think it might just be a transcription error in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, it appears that you are right and that I had mistakenly transcribed this. Thank you for catching that inconsistency! I've taken the liberty to delete "A1 layers over A4" from the page. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• You have "subsequent artistic styles" but unless the layering is read as chronological sequence you have not given any sequence information, so "subsequent" is unexplained.

  I've added a chronological sequence for the sub-styles of Stylistic group A. I hope this has addressed this issue. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Page 313 of the source gives a very explicit chronology that includes specific dates for each of the sub-styles of group A. Is there any reason not to include these dates? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, yes. These are uncalibrated radiocarbon dates. This, according to Joe Roe, is unhelpful, and probably should not be mentioned in the article as a result. I learned this during a discussion with him asking for his advice on the article as a professional archaeologist, which can be found at Cueva de las Manos Expert Review. MOS:ERA also states: When feasible, avoid uncalibrated dates except in direct quotations. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's reasonable, and very annoying. I found this article that includes some Cueva de las Manos radiocarbon dates, and which explicitly says the dates are not calibrated "pending further analysis of calibration effects in the earlier part of the survey period". You might consider emailing Aschero and/or Schneier and asking them if any calibration results have been published. Have you seen calibrated dates published in any of the papers you've read? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), Aschero and Schneier's book chapter and article were both published this year, so I doubt that any calibration has been performed since then over the course of the last seven months if the dates (still) weren't calibrated by then. I'm also unable to read the article you linked to (perhaps it needs to be permalinked?). I agree that it does suck, especially since after I had that uncalibrated radiocarbon date conversation I had to remove a lot of the sourced BP dates.

  As for explicitly calibrated radiocarbon dates, I have yet to see any. However, rest assured that by convention (I think after talking to Joe Roe) all published radiocarbon dates are calibrated unless stated otherwise. So if you see a BP and you can't find the dreadful word uncalibrated you're probably good to go on the dating side of things. There are no uncalibrated dates used in the article. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Since you say at one point that there are over 2,000 handprints in the cave, and at another point that there are over 2,000 handprints in group B, I think it would be worth explicitly saying that most of the handprints are in group B, or perhaps just that most of the art is in group B. In fact there's nothing in the article about the relative abundance of each group -- adding something about that would probably resolve this.

  Good point! Would that explicit statement, that most of the handprints are in group B, be better written under the heading Stylistic groups B and B1 or Forms? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the relative abundance of each group. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  By "relative abundance" I meant a statement such as "Almost all of the over 2,000 handprints are in group B, with only five or ten handprints in each of the other groups", or "there are about 400 handprints in each of the groups", or whatever the case might be. Does the source give that information? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the source does not give that information. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "In group B1, composing what could be considered the latter part of group B": do you mean "what is thought to be the latter part"? Presumably some scholar has speculated or argued for this?

  This is a paraphrase of Art & Place: Site-Specific Art of the Americas. I didn't mean "what is thought to be the latter part" because it doesn't really matter if you think of it either way, and the scholars don't care enough to argue either way. The closest comparison I can make is that it would be like debating whether water should be called dihydrogen oxide or dihydrogen monoxide. The phrase as-is isn't really a sign of anything arguing for a position, or even acknowledging opposing viewpoints. It is merely acknowledging the continuity between B and B1, despite its separation into different groups. B1 is contiguous with B, and so it's not unreasonable to treat it as a subgroup of B or as a separate but closely related style. Scholars do not seem to be bothered over which distinction is made. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  How about making it "In group B1, a subgroup of B, the forms become..."? That would avoid the implication that the subgroup is thought to be later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

   Done Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• There is apparently a gap of about 600 years between B and C -- do the sources comment on this? E.g. on why group B may have ended?

  I don't think there is. Curious... Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the popular children's book Ghost Hands": is the source for "popular" independent of the publisher and author? Are we sure this is notable enough to be mentioned?

  I wrote "popular" because I'm so used to all children's books being referenced as a "popular children's book". There is no source for it, and I've gone ahead and deleted the adjective. As for notability, I asked DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered and they thought that it was notable enough to be mentioned. I myself was unsure, which is why I asked in the talk page discussion above at Should I include information about Ghost Hands? Perhaps it should be footnoted? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  OK, let's leave it in and we can see if it survives FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "This pigment is used more rarely, having been drawn from a source 150 km (93 mi) away": Suggest making this "This pigment is used more rarely. It was drawn from a source 150 km (93 mi) away." unless the source explicitly draws the causal connection.

  Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. Once these are resolved I'll try to help with a consistency review of the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I should have more time tomorrow to get back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I've struck one point, and there are now just two items left above -- a suggestion about rephrasing the discussion of group B, and a suggestion that we drop reference to the UNESCO source in the discussion of dates. Once those are addressed I'll read through again and see if there are any more nits to pick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Just the UNESCO point left now -- we still have the incorrect UNESCO date in the lead, and the sentence starting "The earliest evidence of habitation..." still makes it sound as though the art was last created between 11,000 and 7,500 BC, when it was created after those dates and continued to be created for thousands of years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, planning to change it to have the other date system and footnote the UNESCO since they are a major authority on world heritage. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Should be all ready to go. Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've struck the last point and am about to read through again. I'm not sure we need the UNESCO footnote -- after all, they contradict themselves just a couple of paragraphs later in the source, so it seems very likely it's just a mistake of some kind. But I think it's harmless, so let's leave it in and see if anyone complains at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Annual Precipitation source conflict

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)

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)

Thanks, FunkMonk! Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Second pass comments

• "Several waves of people occupied the cave over time, as evidenced by some of the early artwork that has been radiocarbon dated to about 7,300 BC." This doesn't work; the fact that some article is dated to a particular date doesn't imply there were multiple waves of occupation. This is a problem both in the lead and the body.

  I'll just remove the second clause then since it doesn't seem to contribute to anything. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

   Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• You mentioned radiocarbon dating in two consecutive sentences in the lead -- fixing the previous sentence would probably fix this too.

   Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• What's the difference between being a National Historic Monument and a National Historic Site?

  I don't know, but the nation of Argentina wants to make this distinction, so I don't feel keen to argue with them ;). In all seriousness, it's probably for similar reasons why the US government likes to make these same distinctions. Here's another link. In all honesty, I don't know the precise difference myself. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm just wondering if they're really the same thing, and the apparently different name is an artefact of translation. There's no question about the "Monument" designation; that's clear in multiple sources. For the "Site", the source you give is in Portuguese with a supplied English translation. The source in Portuguese is "Un ejemplo de ello es el Decreto Nacional N° 817/2019, que declaró Paisaje Cultural Nacional al área que comprende la cuenca media y baja del río Pinturas, donde se encuentra la Cueva de las Manos, entre otros sitios; asimismo se definió un Área de Amortiguación Visual. Cabe destacar que la Cueva de las Manos era Monumento Histórico Nacional desde 199312 y había sido declarada Paisaje Provincial conforme a la Ley N° 3.394/2014 de la provincia de Santa Cruz." which appears to just refer to the Monument status plus the fact that it's part of the Cueva de las Manos Provincial Park. Is there another source, or something I've missed in this source, that specifies a separate "National Historic Site" status? I did try looking through the Argentinian government tourist websites but couldn't find anything there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Good catch. I think this a mistake, and should be removed. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

   Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "When the site was occupied, the Pinturas and Deseado Rivers drained into the Atlantic Ocean, and provided water for herds of guanacos, making the area attractive to Paleoindians. As the glacial ice fields melted, the Baker River captured the drainage of the eastward flowing rivers and redirected the flow to the Pacific Ocean." I initially read this to mean that the Pinturas and Deseado now drain into the Pacific, or else ran dry as a result of the changes, but neither is the case. I think what is meant is that much of the drainage that fed these rivers was captured by the Baker, so that the level of water in the Pinturas and Deseado fell, but I don't have access to the source. If so I think this needs rewording.

  The text is fully available at Gale, which is itself fully available through the The Wikipedia Library. The Gale number in the citation should lead you directly to where you need to go. This is almost certainly an error due to a misparaphrase of the source, so taking a look at the source would be the easiest way to show what went wrong. Also, let me know if you still can't get access so that I can send the source directly to you. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  I reworded it a bit; I think the "fluvial terraces" mention is enough to say "reduction in water levels". By the way, I see you're using the same citation at the end of consecutive sentences; there's nothing wrong with that but I just wanted to make you aware it's not necessary. Some people like to do it that way to make it less likely to lose citations when reworking the text; others think it's needless clutter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! Looking back, I will admit that saying that the rivers drained into the Pacific Ocean is a bit dubious, considering that they would have had to cross the Andes to do that, lol. I had no idea what to do with "fluvial terraces" so I'm glad that you were able to get that sorted out in the sentence.

  You're right about the reworking part; the multiple citations were only around so that I would not forget, because I had done paragraph citations earlier and then had a problem with restructuring the article because I had to check every end citation to see if it applied to the whole paragraph or not before moving materiel around. Anyways, I'm glad that the entire paragraph did not require restructuring this time around, and I'm fine with removing the individual sentence citations at this point in the article lifecycle if it would be helpful to anyone. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs in "History" before "Modern study and protection" are similar in that they start with a date and then give some historical information. I think these two should be reorganized to include the material in the first paragraph in the second one, perhaps then splitting off another paragraph starting with "At first, Cueva de las Manos...". I would drop the 7,300 date because it's contradicted by the 7,500 date and is really a reference to the start of the art, not just the start of habitation. Here's a possible draft:

Beginning around 7,500 BC, Cueva de las Manos and the Cerro Casa de Piedra-7 site near lake Burmeister became important landmarks in a nomadic circuit between the Pinturas Canyon and its surrounding areas, the Western part of the Central High Plateau, and the steppes and forests of the ecotone bordering the steppes and forests of the mountainous-lake environment of the Andes. These regions existed at various elevations. The migratory patterns of this circuit were seasonal, following the abundance of vegetables in each region, and the births of guanacos, which varied based on the altitude of their habitat. The furs of newborn guanacos were highly sought after by the native peoples, increasing the importance of guanaco birth patterns to the timing of the seasonal migrations. The prime time for newborn guanacos near Cueva de las Manos was around November. The groups who inhabited the area included the long-vanished Toldense people, who lived in the caves until the third or second millennium BC. When occupying the area, temporary camp sites would be made around the cave, where extended families or even large bands of people would gather. The groups that gathered at these camp sites would have enabled the inhabitants to organize group hunting of guanacos.

The earliest rock art at the site began to be created around 7,300 BC. At first, Cueva de las Manos was the only site in this region to contain rock art, consisting of the A1 and A2 styles of the cave, but after 6,800 BC the art of Las Manos, particularly hunting scenes of what would later become known as styles A3, A4, and A5, was created at other sites in the region. The existence of obsidian in the area of the cave—which is not natural to the region—also implies a broad-ranging network of trade between peoples of the cave area and distant tribal groups. The site was last inhabited around 700 AD, with the final cave dwellers possibly being ancestors of the Tehuelche tribes.

I've reordered the sentences according to what you suggested, and I do agree that it looks much better. Could you double-check my work to make sure that I didn't accidentally delete anything that I wasn't supposed to? (I might be acting a little paranoid about losing work here.) Also, do you think that it would be a good idea to move the sentence about obsidian trade networks up to the part about the Pre-Columbian economy of Patagonia? Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea; I went ahead and made that change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Important parts of previous cultures were shown in the themes of the art. Among the things important to these peoples were the reproductive cycles of guanacos, and collective hunting, which were important aspects of the social lives of the hunter-gatherers" Three uses of "important" in two sentences.

  I went ahead and fixed this myself by merging the two sentences. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, thanks! I was just about to do that, lol. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• 'Moreover, Ian N. M. Wainwright and colleagues stated in 2002 that "quartz, and calcium oxalate have been admixed with the pigments".' Any reason for pulling these out and citing the author and date? Can we just add "quartz and calcium oxalate" to the sentence "Haematite, goethite, and green earth have also been detected"?

  The original reason was to avoid direct quotation without attribution, but if that's not an issue then I agree it should be folded into the prior sentences. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done. A short phrase with un-substitutable nouns like "quartz and calcium oxalate" is not a concern for close paraphrasing, and even if you did want to keep the quotes, so long as the citation is directly after the end of the quote the attribution is clear and there's no need to name the source inline. Where it's more important to name the source in the article is when it's clearly an opinion, although there are exceptions to that rule too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for rewording it! I will carry this knowledge into future short quotations so that I won't have long strings of attribution for short snippets like this. I guess that Wikipedia guidelines can only teach you so much about these sorts of things without someone having direct experience. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Footnote 62 is giving me a harv script error, I think because it's not done using {{harvp}}. I don't use harv myself and don't understand it, so I don't know what to tell you to do about this if that's not the answer.

  I'm not sure about this and I haven't been able to come up with a clear-cut answer. The best I can come up with is that it's because it's a bundled citation that the bot is having issues with. Regardless, I think it's more of a problem with the program than it is with the actual article itself. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Up to you, but I would suggest unbundling the citation to avoid it, or asking someone more knowledgeable if there's another way to fix it. You're right that it's not a problem with the article text, but there's a good chance someone will remark on it at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'll just unbundle it. Three citations in a row isn't too long. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why the bibliography is chronological rather than alphabetical as usual?

  It was originally arranged chronologically in order to show the progression of ideas and study over time. If it would be easier to use alphabetically, I am in favor of making the change. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  I made it alphabetical; I think it's more important for the reader to be able to quickly find the source citation by scanning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was getting that feeling. Thanks for taking the time to change it! Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Tyrone Madera trimming the Further reading section.

• The further reading section seems not to be sorted. And I'm surprised to see so many -- were these of no use as sources?

  These were planned sources but were dropped for one reason or another. I personally have been wanting to trim it, but haven't figured out which ones to remove and how. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  I rarely have a further reading section, because I feel that if a source gives the reader useful information about the topic, I should be including that information in the article. Do these sources really add anything to the reader's understanding of the topic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I guess not. One or two of Gradin's works might be nice, though, because his writings were so fundamental to the existing scholarship on the topic, even if what he's said has been disseminated through other sources already. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'd suggest cutting all but those one or two, then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, will do! Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

   Done. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The points above are pretty minor; this is close to ready to nominate. I don't see any obvious problems with the source formatting; I ran a script to find errors and it came up clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There is one thing that's been bothering me, and that is some of the citation changes that came about via this edit. A lot of the title formatting, identifiers, and publisher and author links were destroyed in this edit, which has disunified the casing of titles and wiki linking in the references section. I don't know if there's any way to easily fix this. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Without looking to see what the issues were, the best choice is usually to revert and then reimplement whatever was valid in the changes. Once a few more edits have been done that's usually a bad idea. I think you'd probably have to manually fix whatever that edit broke. What's an example of something it broke? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been quite a few edits. An example of something it broke is that it made all of the words in every title lowercase, except for the first word, violating MOS:TITLECAPS. Of course, this is just one example. If you look at the diff, you will see many more things that have also gone wrong. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I just fixed the last item. I think this is ready to nominate; I know you have it listed to GOCE and it's up to you if you want to let them make a pass through, but I did a copyedit myself as I went through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm also still waiting on gaining access to any of the sources on Alberto Maria de Agostini's documentation of the cave at WP:RX, per User:FunkMonk. FunkMonk said that it is "an essential source" so I should access and cite it. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I think if you can't get it by this point, it should be ok, since the article now seems very comprehensive as is. But you can keep looking ou for the book even after it is FAC nominated or even promoted. I often add sources to an article long after promotion as I get them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will continue to look out for the source and see if it comes up. Until then, it sounds like the consensus is that the article is finally ready for FAC. Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Co-nomination

@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)

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)

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)

Thank you both for your responses! I'm glad to hear that you are confident in my ability to go forward with the nomination unilaterally. I had no idea that you are still able to support a candidate after mentoring! In that case, I will wait for a period when I have a lot free time and then notify you both of the nomination. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Hi, Tyrone Madera, just wanted to check up on whether you're still sending this to FAC, and if you need any assistance? FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, FunkMonk, life is too busy right now. I am still interested, but I simply haven't had time. Tyrone Madera (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool, feel free to ping me here when you feel ready. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for checking in! Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Article quoted in popular YouTube video

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)

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)

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)