Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/African humid period/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

African humid period

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just given it a years-end expansion and wanted to see if it can be improved further from here. There are a bunch of questions:

  • Is the current structure of the article suitable for the topic?
  • Are there suggestions about the prose and content? There are some sections which simply string together a number of facts and could be put into a better text form.
  • Are there any unanswered questions about the topic that the article should answer?
  • Talk:African humid period has a number of unused sources which could be integrated, but which I need a second opinion for.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Then to avoid confusion, you should refer to these earlier periods as "earlier humid periods" so that it might read "In an earlier humid period 80 kya/whatever..." for example   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is already the case? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use abbreviations like kya instead of thousands of years ago, and BP for before present   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A little concerned that they might not be clear to lay readers... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is comprehensive of the topic, but half the size of what it should be for an article of this size (268,000 characters) which tells me the article is too big for its own good. As I said before, splitting is not the solution, it's cutting, because most everything said seems to be repeated twice or three times. My big comment is that you need to work on condensing and organization information. Honestly, I would not have passed this for GA as it fails criteria 1a, 1b, and 3b   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure that "most everything said seems to be repeated twice or three times"? I see that we don't agree on the Nile parts but I don't think that most of the content beyond that is duplicated in any way. OK, things like the Rwenzori thing (the paragraph Ceoil flagged) may be unnecessary detail; do you think that should go? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Rwenzori Mountains, forests during the period may record warmer temperatures" this is such useless information. I'm sure a lot of places record warmer temperature from the time period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That stuff is now gone and I've managed to shorten part of the Nile section, although the one under "Onset" could probably be cut as well - perhaps assume that if Lake Victoria is now overflowing, it must have reappeared? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Both of them say that it was caused by a change in Earth's orbit around the Sun, something about vegetation and dust, and monsoon seasons, except the last paragraph goes into too much detail. The only thing new in the last paragraph is the last sentence, so you can delete the rest of that paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK; did that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But when it's "The AHP led to a widespread settlement of the Sahara and the Arabian Deserts, and had a profound effect on African cultures, such as the birth of the Pharaonic civilization" it makes it sound like Ancient Egypt began during the AHP   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "after its end" to specify this. I did also recheck the sources on the statement, and yes a number of them have drawn a connection between the birth of Ancient Egypt and the end of the AHP - I was briefly having some WP:OR concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Research history
Then list all the dates, I don't image there're more than 2 to 3 estimates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are considerably more than just 2 or 3 estimates, unfortunately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background and beginning
You should integrate them into the paragraph talking about interglacials then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77:Sorry; paragraph or sentence? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a lot of areas for condensing. I condensed the Conditions before the African humid period section for you, try to do the same for the rest of the sections.
  • " although some lakes persisted in areas where colder temperatures had decreased evaporation,[31] and both the Niger River and Senegal River were stunted" are these two statements supposed to be related? I don't really understand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, they don't. I've spun out the intermediate sentence into a note as it contextualizes a bit but does not really fit into the flow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally, glaciers were active in the Bale and Semien Mountains of Ethiopia during the last glacial maximum" why "finally"? How does this relate to anything in that section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they do. I've removed that sentence, which was meant to describe how Africa looked like before the AHP. Eh, it can probably be readded to another section if it helps there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there not glaciers there today?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only glaciers left are these of Mount Kenya (no relation to the AHP), Rwenzoris (related to the AHP perhaps, but the only source is a dissertation) and Kilimanjaro (related to the AHP, as explained in the East Africa section). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reappearance of Lake Victoria[95] was also accompanied by its overflow and that of Lake Albert 15,000–14,500 years ago[68] into the White Nile" what of Lake Albert? Are you just trying to say "Lake Victoria and Lake Albert began to overflow into the White Nile 15–14 kya"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes (none of the sources I see explicitly claims that Lake Albert dried out then), would the reappearance of Lake Victoria work better as its own sentence? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. The Nile is sourced from Lake Victoria, so if Lake Victoria dried up, did the Nile also dry up? So you should instead talk about the reappearance of the Nile
It's an attempt to describe both the reappearance of Lake Victoria and that of the Nile; I've rewritten this sentence. That said, it's perhaps an idea to move the last sentences of this paragraph up and begin it by talking about the lakes before leading up to the Nile changes (and perhaps move the glacier parts to another section); what say you? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm saying that the Conditions before the African humid period section is completely redundant with the Onset section, and should be deleted to its entirety more or less   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, I have to disagree - in my mind that leaves much too little context about what Africa looked like pre-AHP and that is important context for an article on a historical event. Plus - and this is explicitly a "personal feeling" thing, not a demonstrable truth - in my experience one of the key advantages of Wikipedia articles over other sources of information (other than the fact that we are often better vetted than these) is precisely the detailed information (not necessarily unduly technical language, however) which other sources tend to oversimplify so I am quite loath of letting it go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at all the repetition. In Onset, "Lake Victoria reappeared and overflowed" so now we know that Lake Victoria and the Nile had dried up (though you should state plainly that the Nile also reappeared). So, the 3rd paragraph of Conditions can be deleted. In Onset, "The onset of the humid period took place almost simultaneously over all of Northern[e] and Tropical Africa[94] with impacts as far as Santo Antão on Cape Verde" first of all, everything after 94 is meaningless (try saying "as far north as"), and you could simply expand "impacts" here. Isn't the 2nd paragraph of Conditions already covered somewhere else (I'd imagine that info belongs in Causes)? You're giving a lot of information not very directly related to the topic, and I think that's one of the reasons the article's so big, it's trying to cover the scopes of multiple articles.
The Nile history is a bit more complex than it merely reappearing so I can't just say that. I can't say "as far west as" (not "north"; Cape Verde is west of Africa) because the source doesn't say that. No, the Causes section is for the beginning of the AHP, not for the aridity before it. In general (as hinted at in my comment to Sandy below) I think that a split discussion is better suited for the time after a prose/content tightening has been carried out - in fact I was thinking that a "conditions before and after AHP" article would be a splittable topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any importance about the history of the Nile is not coming across in the slightest other than it dried up then came back. Why is "with impacts as far as Santo Antão on Cape Verde" important? Is Cape Verde a desert? From the rest of the article, it's already implied what conditions were like before AHP (like "A number of lakes formed[221] or expanded in the Sahara[172]...the largest of which was Lake Chad" now we know Lake Chad was small before AHP making "Other lakes across Africa, such as Lake Chad...also had shrunk" redundant). The splittable topic you're talking about already exists as Heinrich event from what I'm understanding. The Onset section deals with just the beginning of AHP, I don't understand the partition   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of the Nile history was more that it's arguably one of Africa's best known parts and the effects of the AHP on it were somewhat complicated. Cape Verde is somewhat of a desert, yes, and even parts of Africa that aren't/weren't deserts saw their climate change in noticeable ways during the AHP. I know that Heinrich event exists, but it says virtually nothing about its effects - good example for a contextless article but not IMO a very good article.
You can expand Heinrich event to include effects. In this article, the way you've done it, cause and effect are more or less the same. That's why I'm saying deleted cause because it's repetitive and it's making this article far bigger than it should be by saying the same thing over and over again. Why do you need a separate section to say "Dunes were active much closer to the equator,[55][57][a] and rainforests retreated in favor of afromontane and savannah landscapes as temperatures, rainfall, and humidity decreased" when you could just say "Increased temperature, rainfall, and humidity in the AHP shrunk the prevailing afromontane and savannah landscapes in favor of rainforests, and pushed dune activity farther away from the equator" in Effects?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of the information is duplicated but not all of it, so I don't agree with a full deletion. Perhaps sentences like (just an example) the Lake Victoria one could be deleted from the "conditions before" section and the one under "onset" expaned to "Lake Victoria, which had dried up..., reappeared". I think we don't agree on how much contextual information is warranted here. I can't move it all to Heinrich event because not all of it is a consequence of HR1 and because it would create undue weight over there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the partition was that I was writing in a before-beginning-ongoing-end-after 5-step chronology style, as the beginning and end of the AHP were not simply a big bang with no transitory phenomena. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

[edit]

Jo-Jo, I have a real dilemma here. I'm willing to dive in, and want to help, but you indicated above that you want to bring it to FA level. I have a long- and well-documented history in favor of strict adherence to crit 4 with respect to WP:SIZERULE, and I have always opposed any FAC that approaches 10,000 words of readable prose. In fact, I favor keeping articles tightly focused in the realm of 6–7,000 words, and believe that articles above that can be better written using summary style to several sub-articles. The best advice I ever got at peer review was the editor who slashed my earlier work at Tourette syndrome to its FA-level of about 6,000 words, and I thank that wise editor today. Because I feel so strongly about the SIZERULE, I avoided the recent FAC of another FA writer, and would have to do same here if I participate. Would you be willing to use WP:SS to create sub-articles? Among the advantages of scaling back the main article is that more reviewers are likely to engage a trimmed article, and getting an extremely long article through FAC is hard. This article is now at:

  • Prose size (text only): 83 kB (13420 words) "readable prose size"

and the idea of diving in is daunting. The topic would be much more approachable and focused IMO if you created some daughter articles and cut it in half. Another advantage to that approach is that you can create two or three FAs for the price of one :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:That's a good question - as you can see from the talk archives, other people have noted that the stupendous length is a problem - and I expected it to become a problem; in fact I was thinking to ask on WT:FAC before any nomination (although I see that Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Germany are longer FAs). One problem I have with a split is that this topic does not lend itself to an obvious split - it's not like a conglomerate of two neatly separable topics - and it would be a fair amount of work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the word count can be reduced without splitting or loosing focus. It’s a bit listy in places. Am travelling atm, but can make suggestions in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, the current text at many points can be shortened substantially. I was planning to squeeze that in between real life obligations and my Wikipedia work on 1669 Etna eruption and Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had I been active when Hillary Clinton was at FAC, I would have opposed. The problem with these ultra-long articles is they lend to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Bios are very easily summarized to sub-articles.
  • I promoted John McCain when it had 7,000 words;promoted version it is now at 14,000 words, so half that article has not been vetted for FA standards. It should be submitted to WP:FAR for a new review. When half of the content is not vetted, we don't have an FA.
  • I have been complaining about Germany for as long as I can remember; it should go to WP:FAR again. The last reviewed version (FAR) was 6,000 words, so the same as McCain-- this is not an FA-vetted article. (Are you seeing the problems I mention with a moribund FAR? We have people believing the standards of non-FA-reviewed articles are adequate; they are not.)
  • I would have opposed Mitt Romney, which is QUITE easily summarized to sub-articles; that was promoted after I resigned.
More significantly, observe the problems Lingzhi had with his recent FAC. You will do yourself a big favor if you take a serious look at the structure of the article and find a way to summarize it to sub-articles, and you will have the bonus of two or three FAs for all the work you have done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is he says the same things multiple times rather than there being just too much information   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sizerule is decades-old, archaic garbage, period, full stop. BF43 was destroyed by hardcore POV warriors and FAC coords who are afraid to face up to (or uncaring about, or too lazy? perhaps the latter. probably the latter. Never even read the FAC, which was, of course, one of the POV warriors' [successful] goals.) hardcore POV warriors. Please never mention my name again. And please do grow up! The internet can handle larger articles. And anyone who can't read an article that size would have NO INTEREST in looking at anything about BF43. They will be too busy looking at wrestling articles. Or porn. Wake up. Grow up. Your head is in the sand. You are totally oblivious to the wider reality. PS Please never mention me again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​This dispute aside, perhaps it's worthwhile to see how much this article can be shortened; if it's still too long a split will need to be discussed, although the "no straightforward way to split" problem isn't something I see an obvious solution for. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

[edit]

These issues need to be resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing gripe by Ceoil

[edit]

You are still way over cited. I'm reading the internal deliberations on talk FAC, and leaning towards Fowler's view on sparing use of ciations via use of broad topic survey books. I know the African humid period is an understudied topic, and you created the article around a year ago, but still....cannot some of these reffs be condensed, if not for readability sake only.

'The African humid period was accompanied by a warmer climate, the hypsithermal[292]/Holocene Thermal Maximum,[459] which has been recorded from Africa,[45] Arabia,[460] the Caribbean[461][o] and the Mediterranean for example.[427] In the Rwenzori Mountains, forests during the period may record warmer temperatures.[462] Conversely, based on a drill core taken at Saraya, Senegal, temperatures during the AHP were 1 °C (1.8 °F) lower than today there.[463] An increase in atmospheric methane concentrations, detected in Greenland ice cores about 14,700 years ago, was probably a consequence of growing tropical wetlands.[90]"

Overall, this is a sea of needless blue links and citations (density seems to be a back up hyperlink every four words) that is not attractive to a passing reader. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I should have known that between exams, Coropuna and User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1669 Etna eruption I wouldn't have time left for significant re-writes here. Regarding this particular block ^ I am tempted to actually cut it altogether or move it to a footnote, as it describes an event that co-ocurred with AHP rather than being its consequence. Is the Rwenzori unnecessary detail?
In general, such text can be made more readable by moving some references to end of sentence but I suspect that some people would then think they are redundant to each other. What do people think on that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​PS: Ceoil, pings don't work when you edit them into an already existing post. You need to put in a new line with a signature, as I've just done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, why do we have 4 citations seemingly casting doubt on each other, and muddling readability, for a relatively simple statement of uncertainty:
@Ceoil:Saw this one. The problem is that there are sources giving one date and sources giving the other and no clear way to set priority. Under WP:BALANCE I cannot simply leave one statement out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But if no source gives the full range appearing on our article, is this not SYNTH? Ceoil (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good question there, Ceoil. On the one hand putting "or" instead of a range is probably better from a WP:SYNTH perspective. On the other hand if there are more than two equally plausible dates you end up with an overly long sentence. Here in this specific sentence (I saw your edit summary; there are two other such constructions that I can find), perhaps "or" is better; what do you think? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm picking a specific instance of a endemic issue with the article. My guess is that the subject is understudied and you are relying too much on primary and secondary sources in an effort to vary the spread of citations. Maybe there is over kill here. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Actually, the reason why there is spread in citations is that even when limiting stuff to secondary sources there is often a fair amount of disagreement between sources. There are only a few tertiary sources - Heine 2019 is probably the principal one - on this topic. The trick is how to formulate these disagreements, and the specific example you mention might not be doing it the best way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the problem is a great amount of disagreement, I think you're just saying a lot of detail not entirely relevant to the scope, or spacing out sources which say the same thing (and sometimes you present them as contradictory). Just scrolling through, I found "and with the Holocene Thermal Maximum[48]/hypsithermal.[49]" Why are 48 and 49 spaced out like that? Holocene Thermal Maximum and Hypsithermal are the same event. Why do you give both names?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: I've taken out that particular item, but I take there are more? (Apart from the section issue above) Regarding the spacing of citations, it's in part a style question - spacing them makes it clearer which fact is supported by which source, putting them together increases readability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just scrolling through:

Femkemilene

[edit]

Nice work on this article! Some comments about the last section:

  • Currently, the Sahel is becoming greener but precipitation has not fully recovered to levels reached in the mid-20th century. -> This is cited to a 2007 paper, so not currently. According to this Carbon Brief article it was still true in 2015, but ideally a newer source is used.
  • and it has to be considered: this sentence sounds a bit editorializing/telling the reader what to do
  • that vegetation feedbacks often are not taken into account sourced to a 2003 study. Since, we're three generations of climate models further and all climate models worth mentioning now have a land-surface model and therefore vegetation feedbacks.
  • There is some mention of tipping point behaviour in the literature (see article I just linked, and scientific papers mentioned therein). You might want to include this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femkemilene:I've dealt with your second and third point. Regarding the first, I confess I am not that familiar with the literature of the very recent (2010-2020) changes in Sahel vegetation; do you know a good source for these? Regarding tipping point, my impression from the literature is that originally the end of the AHP was considered a good example of tipping point behaviour but now the scientific consensus on the matter is that it was a more gradual decline. I'll see if there are sources here that discuss this aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For that statement, the IPCC report on land and climate change might be of interest. On page 263 it states: Despite desertification in the Sahel being a major concern since the 1970s, wetting and greening conditions have been observed in this region over the last three decades (Anyamba and Tucker 2005; Huber et al. 2011; Brandt et al. 2015; Rishmawi et al. 2016; Tian et al. 2016; Leroux et al. 2017; Herrmann et al. 2005; Damberg and AghaKouchak 2014). I've slightly consensed your first sentence.
Further condensation (which is probs necessary throughout the entire article for FA), can be found in not mentioning the two IPCC reports; simply rephrase their conclusions. For the sake of brevity, anything uncertain about tangentially related tipping points in the future should indeed not be mentioned. (I'm not familiar with the lit, but there is at least one 2019 article that still provided evidence for tipping point behaviour: Roubeix, Vincent; Chalié, Françoise (2019-01-01). "New insights into the termination of the African Humid Period (5.5 ka BP) in central Ethiopia from detailed analysis of a diatom record". Journal of Paleolimnology. 61 (1): 99–110. doi:10.1007/s10933-018-0047-7. ISSN 1573-0417.
In addition to consending, a split is also an option to make sure information isn't lost. You indicated that you wouldn't know how to split the article. There is no logical split in half, true, but most section would make a good article, for instances: causes of the African Humid Period. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I am unsure how to rephrase the IPCC conclusions. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf seems OK to me, is there a ready-to-go citation template for that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional comments about the background section:

  • The African humid period took place in the late Pleistocene and early-middle Holocene and was characterized by increased precipitation in Northern and Western Africa relative to today due to a northward migration of the tropical rainbelt. This sentence has 6 cites. I assume that most of this information can be found in one, or at most two sources.
    Cut it to four sources. I can cut it down to three by removing Costa et al. 2014 if we want to replace "migration" with "expansion". A pertinent source Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You note that a humid period happened during the hypsithermal. But hypsithermal links to the Holocene climate optimum. As the HCO is mentioned in the previous section, this example can be deleted.
    Moved this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you write about 15,000 years ago, you can assume a round-off error and omit 15,500. Maybe this saves a cite as well.
    Ehh ... in paleoclimatology I am not sure if one always rounds to the next 0. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the onset of the AHP, Lake Victoria, Albert, Edward, Turkana and the Sudd swamps apparently had dried out. You could save cites & text by giving examples of places that dried out instead of giving a more comprehensive overview. The word apparently could be removed.
    Er, these are examples of places that dried out. Given that they are the largest waterbodies of Africa (together with Lake Chad) I think this should probably stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible switch the first two paragraphs. I find the first paragraph difficult to understand.
    Assuming that you mean the first paragraph of the "Background and Beginning" section, I think a topical split may be better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether some parts of the desert such as highlands like the Red Sea Hills were reached by the westerlies or weather systems associated with the subtropical jet stream—and thus received precipitation—is contentious. The sources around this statement are from the first decade of this century. Is it still contentious?
    Hrm. From a quick review of the sources citing Maley and Brooks it's not so clear if a conclusion has been achieved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You now say in two different ways that the Saharan mountains were the earliest places with increased precipitation (In the Sahara mountains, the onset of a more humid climate appears to have preceded deglaciation in Europe / with an earlier beginning noted in the Saharan mountains). Please delete one of the two.
    Cut the first mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A warming and retreat of sea ice around Antarctica may also coincide with the start of the African humid period, although the Antarctic Cold Reversal also falls into this time. I think this sentence is irrelevant. If you want to keep it, remove the word 'may' as the source doesn't include this uncertainty.
    Not sure about this one. The source does say "probably" and implies but does not explicitly state that there is a connection to AHP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • :: Coincide simply means that something happened simultanuously. Which the source says it did without further qualification. It's the causal link which is uncertain. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::OK, removed the qualifier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

So it's been a month since the last comments. While I was planning to send this article to FAC at some point, it will probably take longer and many comments here are cautionary. I am still not seeing a good way to split and am less than ever convinced that it's a good move (it would be a lot of work - splitting articles is not simply a matter of copypasting stuff - and a lot of maintenance) as it would disperse information on the topic, which is quite broad (and WP:SIZERULE notes that long articles are justifiable for broad topic).

Relatedly I wonder if creating a dedicated article for Green Sahara - the general concept for the Sahara, not the pan-African event that included the Holocene Green Sahara - would make sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with the idea of a split, as explained on your talk yesterday. Have decided to stop editing the article directly, and it seems some of my last edits unintentionally changed subtle meanings; so if you can keep this review open for a week or two, will engage here. ps, i don't think you should take the views above as necessarily cautionary, the feedback was all constructive, none of it, to me, fatal re FAC, and those commenting know the proven track record here. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement. I've done my pass of rewrites (although some of them can be improved still, as I noted in the page history) but I'll leave this open. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will probably post on thursday or friday. To warn, I'm still concerned re overciting, you have 682 inlines at the moment, but need to think through again given your rational above. Ceoil (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is possible to cut back the citing by checking individual and neighbouring sentences and see if one can take out some references without anything being left unsourced. It's just a time-consuming work, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. But think worth it, as this would be a substantial article to get through FAC. For that reason it might set precedent for other editors to follow, which is why am being so, eh, demanding. Frankly when every clause in a sentence is cited twice, I start to think either primary sources + synthase, but combining at the end of a sentence, or taking from high level, summary, sources would help. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, for this and perhaps the next few weeks I'll be busy with real world stuff, so I can't go and do any substantial trimming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that any of us were time bound in our volunteer work here. Have a good weekend. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/African_humid_period/archive1&oldid=962134142"