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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
I'm sure the village of Tenhemad exists, but there are no sources. I have thought about proposing deletion, however the guidelines state I must give chance for sources to be available and reputable. Either someone finds the source, or I will have to re write it from a different source. Thank you. --Haberneroboy16 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 should be used in the body of the article, rather than the lead. Just add the "Hodh El Gharbi region" bit under "Geography and climate", use the ref there, and let it stand without a ref in the lead.
I'd drop the "only"s out of phrases like "only two health posts" or "Only one third of the people". Just saying "there is X" is simply stating a fact, but "there is only X" veers towards taking a view on what there "should" be, if that makes sense.
Ref 3 seems a bit off too. I'd recommend appending [[wikt:ff.|ff.]] to explain the term, but since the information the ref is used for is also covered by ref 13 in the article body, I'd say just drop ref 3 entirely as it's only used in the lead.
"There were 20 "mahadras", or traditional schools" -> I'd use italics rather than quotes here, it's generally a better way to indicate a loanword. Same with "The『Route de l’Espoir』".
Are there any links worth using when we're talking about the tribal demographics? I don't really know Mauritania at all to know if these are closely-related peoples or not. If there's nothing to link don't worry about it.
Bear in mind I'm not familiar with geography article but I don't know if we need to report on the lack of X or Y (midwives, for example), as the list of what a small undeveloped commune doesn't have could be pretty large. Willing to concede this one easily though.
For cities and towns. even villages in Europe, no we wouldn't, but as a dirt poor rural commune in Mauritania commenting on facilities is pretty important I feel.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There are 16 caves, so there may be some tourism potential, but there are no tourist lodgings." -> unless there's a stated desire to encourage tourism I don't know if this one's worth mentioning, really.
Removed tourism speculation and mentioned 16 caves in geo section.
Sources look okay to me in terms of reliability, but my French is useless outside the kitchen. With the "Plan de developpement" cites, though, I would drop the caps and the ellipses, as neither is needed and they'll look cleaner without. "PLAN DE DEVELOPPEMENT..., p. 16." should become "Plan de developpement, p. 16.", for example.
They're government sources and considering this is about an obscure rural commune in Mauritania we're lucky to have found this amount of info on it. Honestly. we've scoured the web and this is as much as exists right now. I was so convinced of that that I nominated it for GA. A week is fine to allow for a copyedit and polish.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption could maybe do with specifying where it is (Ayoun el Atrous, which seems to be nearby, rather than specific to the location, so a better caption would mention that this is typical terrain rather than the actual place).
Not too bad an article at the end of all that, going to stick it on hold for a week while changes are seen to. Nothing too major to be doing. GRAPPLEX03:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am getting a few edits in now before work so I don't have time right now to check the copyedit but at a glance this looks ready. I'll be back in a few hours to check for sure. GRAPPLEX08:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have landed on this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here indicating if I have concerns or not.
In general, I see the process as this: 1) Give the article a quick look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, resolving any minor issues as I do so; 2) If I have concerns, open a GAR to see how serious those concerns are, resolving them myself if they are not serious; 3) If during the GAR I feel that there is significant work to be done (more than I can or am willing to do myself), I will put the GAR on hold and notify the main contributors.
My aim and intention is to keep the article listed - I would rather the article was improved and kept listed than the article is delisted. Where a delisting seems likely due to the amount or nature of work needed being greater than I am able or willing to do alone, and the main contributors are unavailable or unable for whatever reason to do the work, then appropriate WikiProjects will be notified at least seven days before a delisting would take place. SilkTork✔Tea time06:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Looks OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
