Talk:Lake Ptolemy

Lake Ptolemy has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 18, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Lake Ptolemy is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Sudan Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sudan (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from Lake Ptolemy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 April 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a lake larger than Lake Erie existed in the eastern Sahara less than 12,000 years ago?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Ptolemy.

Wikipedia

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lake Ptolemy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 00:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 00:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: So that you know about this review. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 08:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-prose review

Change the "citations" to actual citations, and add pictures and infobox with map and location.
They are actual citations...? As far as I know we have no images that are freely licenced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the MOS, they are, in fact, kosher, but I've never seen their like in another article. They make the article feel like a college paper, though, but they're OK. Not having pictures is unfortunate. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 05:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

References are reliable.

There is a single <ref> citation used; the citations must be consistent. I recommend switching all citations to this format so they don't clutter the prose.
Eh, I think that either still falls under CITEVAR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unacceptable referencing with this harv "college" style (rework that all to a proper version, not hiding behind "CITEVAR"), far too little references anyway and apart from 2 pages from 2018, most recent one almost a decade old. Tisquesusa (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? There is no rule that says that the references have to be less than a decade old or that the reference style is disallowed. This isn't a medicine article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, as there's been little progress, I've been asked to complete this review. I'll do it below but I'm leaving a comment here to say that, yes, the format of inline refs used in this article should be fine, if currently unusual. However, there is one ref formatted differently - it would be great if you could standardize the format one way or the other :) Kingsif (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Article passes CopyVio scanner. Per pre-pose review, we have no free photos. There are no disambiguation links or broken external links present. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 05:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Further comments

Do we need refs in the lead?
I wouldn't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before Present (BP) - this seems to be a geological standard, and the range means it probably doesn't have to be precise, but if there's a wikilink that makes it clear what this usage is, adding it would be helpful (an average reader may assume someone just added that from an arbitrary date)
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead a little short
Expanded a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox seems suitable enough, given the unknowns
Today the eastern Sahara is among the driest locations on Earth - while cited, this sounds very informal, and a little irrelevant until we reach the next sentence. It may be contextualized better if this sentence comes after the mention of previous wetness. It may not be necessary at all, if the second sentence is phrased to say that the area is no longer as wet as it was in the Holocene.
Moved this around a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a still desertic landscape - would "a desert landscape" work?
No, I think the "still" is important here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a stronger African monsoon caused by a higher axial tilt and the perihelion of Earth coinciding with late July and thus the monsoon season - could the jargon be expanded enough that someone with no astronomical or geographical knowledge would be able to read this?
Going to be hard as most sources do not explain this tidbit in a non-jargon fashion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph on the Lake section doesn't really explain the differences in research, which could be somewhat useful. Especially the last sentence, which just throws a bunch of numbers out as 'others'.
Did a small rewrite here but not sure it'd be adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Water depths reached 15 metres (49 ft). Depending on the location, evidence for water levels of 550 metres - a big difference that also might warrant a little note about who/when/why
Removed it as it was mingling two unrelated measures. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the former case - is this referring to the 15 or 550 mentioned before, it doesn't seem that clear to me
Should be fixed by the change above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I said the ref style was fine, is it possible to move them all to the ends of sentences so that it doesn't disrupt reading? As page numbers have been provided accurately throughout I don't think this will affect verifiability much and there are no direct quotes in the article to need immediate support. I also think there might be some missing commas in places where the parenthetical refs are, which is hard to suggest fixes for.
I dunno, it breaks text-source integrity in a way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a lake stand - wikilink?
Replaced with a less jargony term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
shallow water episodes - ditto; without sacrificing accuracy, it would be great to keep it accessible
Expanded a bit; I don't think this kind of term has a suitable wikilink. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in its southern and western reaches reaches 549 metres - is it possible to rephrase to avoid "reaches reaches"?
Yes; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
riparian zone with vegetation and irregular lakefloor - per accessible comment
Not sure what that means...? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wadis - river delta is linked but not wadi? (it's linked later, and should be moved to first usage)
Moved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
maximum highstand - (joke) is this a band?
No. I so hate the habit of bands to use technical terms to the point that band-related stuff buries the actual terms in Google. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
northward flowing drainage and to the northeast by northeastward draining systems - the repetition is making this a little hard to get the brain around
Let's see if the rewrite works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a few too many redlinks in the middle of the article - do all these things warrant an article?
I think so, yes. The area is just under-researched, is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
probably formed before the Holocene by deflation - I hear 'deflation', I think economics; some explanation may be needed in the article given this is a common word carrying other meanings
Removed the jargon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
trophic growth - just checking this isn't supposed to say 'tropic'?
No, it's indeed "trophic". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as late as 3,300 – 2,900 and 3,300 – 2,400 years before present - is there some reason this isn't presented as one range?
Apparently both refer to separate parts of the lake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to know if the Relationship to groundwater and ecosystems section should be as long as the others
I generally tend to avoid too many details on individual shore features, but if you want... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't really know what lowstand (and similar) means, which recurs enough that swaths of the article are effectively gibberish. Wikilinks would be helpful, and including some explanation as well would be ideal.
Attempted a small change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page and article history show stability
Copyvio check clear
Accessible sources, all strong. If there are more recent studies it would be good to update (as standard, but some of these are quite old and the article does describe how just over a few years the scientific community could change views on the lake). And no evidence of OR.
I believe Quade et al is the most recent one. Generally, I do yearly updates of my articles every Christmas; then this one will be updated as well if there are new items. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead obviously carries an appropriately dubious tone, but if there are any 'generally accepted' theories, it would be great to mention them instead of the extremes

Placing on hold Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the quick fixes! Just a few questions I thought of when reading it again: where did it get the name from? How was a former lake first discovered? Kingsif (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be surprised, but none of the sources discuss these questions. Toponyms are seldom discussed and this isn't a well covered topic like African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no original source outlining this, that's fine - some coverage might be nice. Otherwise, fine to pass (though I feel it will need a lot of work before FA) Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't think this is the type of article I'll try to work up to FA status. Not enough material for that unless someone publishes a whole book of information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]