A fact from Solar activity appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Well, that was incredibly positive feedback. I hope @David Condrey: has a chance to look at this. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. Yep, I saw it Nick. :) I actually hadn't been back on Wikipedia until last night for several days and am still quite ruffled over the recent issues that I was dealing with a couple weeks ago but I poke my head in to check messages..
I'll be replying on the review page in a moment and have added a banner to the article notifying any random editors of it's impending activity. I may not get to it until late in the week or potentially even until this weekend, but as the reviewer recommended, I will nominate the article for WP:GA, pending some further editing of the article to address his points and any other points which may be mentioned in the review. I've also left a new comment on the talk page of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America under it's original TAFI banner in hopes of getting some more people to review and offer feedback. If anyone would like to work on the article with me, please feel free, I just request that you please review the comments in it's peer review and actively collaborate on the review discussion or on the articles talk page so as to avoid any conflicting edits or edits which could potentially degrade the overall quality of the article. David Condrey (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can an article be nominated as a Good Article and a Featured List or is it necessary to pick one or the other? If so, which would you guys recommend? If planning to nominate as a good article I'd like to set a goal based on the approaching start of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GA_Cup and have any further edits completed and a nomination prepared in time for that launch in hopes of attracting the most attention. If going for Featured Article it may take me longer because I'm not familiar with guidelines on list articles.. Its somewhat ironic I've always actually tended to avoid lists. David Condrey (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because myself and and several other editors have spent the past week working together as part of the Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement improving this article from what had previously been this: |hardly a stub to this. Even though TAFI has moved on, I've continued to fine tune this article and need some constructive criticism to improve it further. Thanks. David Condrey (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Condrey, thanks for your and others edits to this. Folklore and tradition, particularly of Indigenous peoples, is such a neglected sphere on WP, so it's great to see it receiving some attention. I'd encourage you to nominate straight for WP:GA, as I think it has a good chance of meeting the criteria. In addition, you might receive some more in-depth feedback there. Other thoughts:
The more I read this, the more I realize how it is such a large undertaking
Perhaps if it was considered a list, you could try for a featured list?
In order to prepare for it, you'll have to conclude the merge requests.
You will need to provide sources for unsourced areas of the article, of which there are several
I also feel some sections could be expanded, particularly where there's a subsection title and just a list.
You may consider linking to the articles on the different tribes or dialects
A standard format for each subsection would make editing a lot easier. Something like "The tales of people x describe the raven (local pronunciation here) as ..."
Including a little background information on the creation myths or geographical local of the tribes would also add some depth
Is there a reason that both parts of the title are in capitals? I think in general we try and keep article names in sentence case
That said, this is a very interesting article and a large undertaking! Feel free to ask any questions, these are just my thoughts so take them with a grain of salt! Kindly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LT910001:Thank you for taking the time to review the article and left such excellent feedback. I'm sure glad I didn't close this review as I nearly did yesterday when I was checking messages and saw that this looked to be growing spiderwebs. Motivated by your attention, I have left a banner on the article to avoid any editors making any conflicting edits, and am hoping to rally the team over at [[[Wikipedia:Today%27s_articles_for_improvement]] to assist in further editing the article with your comments and any further potential comments left during it's review in mind. Once satisfied that all recommendations have been addressed I will certainly nominate for WP:GA as you suggested. I'd prefer to wait until it's nice and shiny before placing the nomination prematurely. I may not be able to get to this until late in the week, perhaps even this weekend but it will be done soon.
I had previously left a comment on the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America talk page but was unsuccessful in getting any feedback but have gone ahead and left a message again to notify of my intention and hopefully get some more feedback.
During the course of it's original editing, it was mentioned on the articles talk page about potentially adjusting this to become more of a list article. I'm not familiar with list articles but will look into this recommendation further, especially since it's not the first time it's been suggested. Can you offer any further guidance on this? As well, would you mind pointing out the areas which you see could use citation?
I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a great deal of time working on this article and it was suggested by Tom (LT) during this articles peer review, archived here, that it would be a good candidate as a featured list or potentially a good article. I couldn't decide which would be more appropriate... David Condrey (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what exactly you are listing. It appears the list contains four completely different types of entries. 1. Places, 2. Languages, 3. Types of creation myths/specific creation myth, and 4. Indigenous group. I'm really confused as to what kind of structure has been chosen to this interesting list. Mattximus (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: It's set up as a list of all of the stories of the Raven character and split up by tribes which told these stories, so each tribal region is listed with a brief lead followed by a list of the stories which originate from that tribe. David Condrey (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have drawn the short straw. Sorry, but I'm going to have to archive this nomination as stale. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Presently being discussed at it's talk page regarding merging or splitting the article's timeline sections. NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole page of comments by a, uh, thorough reviewer, here: Talk:Java_Man/GA1. Mostly small things that need to be addressed or explained. Madalibi has been handling this alone and the reviewer found more and more stuff. Please help.--Melody Lavender 19:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'll review this soon. I've recently been reading up on archaic humans, so I feel more up to the task now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I think a photo or illustration of fossil elements would be much better for the taxobox than an old reconstruction. See here for example, the actual holotype elements.[2] Reconstructions are prone to error, and are always mere hypotheses, so the actual bones are much more "citable", if you know what I mean. and especially these days, where our understanding of ancient humans has changed radically, I'm not even sure if the reconstruction matches modern opinions. But it could certainly be used in the article somewhere. The taxobox should show the most representative, and least controversial example of the subject.
I agree with your reasoning. I added the picture of the three bones to the taxobox and will think of where I can reinsert the 1922 reconstruction, if at all. Madalibi (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 1922 reconstruction may be more notable than the stamp. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little description of the actual subspecies which is within the scope of this article. It seems that the scope is a bit unclear, most of the article is about the first fossils found, though it should actually cover everything that has been referred to the taxon Homo erectus erectus.
This is a crucial point that I tried to raise on the talk page a few months ago, but the discussion never took off. See. Talk:Java Man#Scope of the article and Talk:Java Man#New article on a Javanese hominin fossil. Your comments suggest that you would like to see a broader page that discusses all specimens of Javanese Homo erectus, which would include Sangiran, Mojokerto, and Ngandong. If this is what we choose to do, then the article should also mention Homo floresiensis, which a few paleoanthropologists consider as a dwarf descendant of early Homo erectus. If we discuss Homo erectus erectus as a whole, we would even need more info on Peking Man. All this would mean a major rewriting, but if this is necessary then so be it. What do you think, FunkMonk? Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think all Asian Homo erectus need discussion, only those specifically referred to H. e. erectus. Is that subspecies widely recognised? Is the name only applied to the first known fossil? FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I'm not completely certain of the scope of the species H. e. erectus, as that term is not widely used in the literature. On the other hand, paleoanthropologists often make a distinction between Homo erectus sensu stricto (= Asian Homo erectus) and Homo erectus sensu lato, which includes both Asian H. erectus and African H. ergaster, a species that share many of the characteristics of Asian H. erectus. But this article is titled “Java Man”, so we should probably leave this distinction to the Homo erectus article. Russell Ciochon and Frank Huffman's article on "Java Man" in the Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (2014) defines Java Man as “the informal name given to Pleistocene Homo erectus inhabitants of Java." This could be a good definition for us here, and it certainly justifies taking a broader view of this topic. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I'll proceed with this by reviewing what's already in the article, then we can talk about possible additions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll be looking forward to your comments! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question of scope is important, but in this case the group of Java Man fossils is notable independently of the collective group of early human fossils from Java. Although other related discoveries should be mentioned in the article, the scope of this article is really about the specific discovery. Another broader article could be made at some point, but it shouldn't detract from this article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example, there is no mention of the evidence that indicates these were using fire, as is mentioned in Control of fire by early humans. That is a pretty significant omission, for one.
I just investigated this claim and found that the article cited in note 4 of Control of fire by early humans actually said that the "charred wood" that was found in the fossil-bearing layers of Trinil may have been the result of natural fires, as Central Java is a volcanically active region. This observation still deserves to be mentioned, probably in a new section on the material culture of Javanese H. erectus. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on Control of fire, linked to the relevant articles and provided 2 new citations on the subject. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
There is too little info in the Characteristics section, and the source is a bit weak. I'm sure some more authoritative and detailed articles can be found to flesh this out.
I agree. I didn't touch this section when I rewrote the article. One of its weaknesses is that it implies that all Homo erectus were about the same size, which is clearly not true. Let me find better sources... Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent a significantly length of time and I have found no further information other than the one source. Attempts to find the sources used by Brittanica have been unsuccessful, as well as searching for various combinations of "Java Man", "Homo erectus erectus" and words like physical characteristics, appearance, size, etc. Nothing has appeared beyond what is already present here that is specifically about Java Man. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to double this section since funkmonk made this statement. There are no "authoritative" sources on that issue, I'm afraid. Homo erectus were a rare species and most of the general knowledge about it's hunter gatherer life style is not secured by evidence but only speculation ("probable") and the scientists are currently working on supporting it by reliable evidence.--Melody Lavender 08:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done the section is quite substantial by now.--Melody Lavender 20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the references. I will need a few days (because I'm busy in real life) to skim through these sources and think of how to integrate them into the article. Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at some of the articles and abstracts in that link, and while some of the look like they might have more good content, I don't have access to any of those journals. At this point I could only make further contributions with freely available sources. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done I went through these references and found about three or four that I could use. Many of them are primary sources for specific theories but there in some instances there was an abstract or some more general part that could be used. I went through theses sources until page 5 when they became very thin.--Melody Lavender 20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the stuff under background really need a separate section? Would logically fit as the beginning fo the discovery section, it is a rather small paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps right align the images under discovery, so they do not clash with the following heading?
I moved the double image up by one paragraph. If it still interferes with the subtitle (probably on a very large screen), let me know and I will right-align it as you request! Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be clashing again. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Pithecanthropus erectus is listed as a synonym here, but it would rather be a synonym of the wider Homo erectus itself.
I think the synonym is sound. Until Ernst Mayr coined the term Homo erectus to refer to Asian fossils from Java and China (thus putting Pithecanthropus erectus into retirement), the Chinese finds had consistently been called Sinanthropus pekinensis. This suggests that P. erectus, when it was used, consistently referred to Javanese Homo erectus, even if these fossils turned out to belong to the same species as Zhoukoudian's Peking Man. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is taxonomically incorrect. Yes, the name was based on these specific specimens, but the fossils are not a taxon, so the name cannot be a synonym of the specimen. Pithecanthropus erectus is a binomial. The species erectus is now classified as Homo erectus. Therefore the genus name Pithecanthropus becomes a synonym of Homo, and P. erectus becomes a synonym of H. erectus. It cannot be a synonym of "Java Man", because Java man is at best a subspecies of Homo erectus, H. e. erectus. A species cannot be a synonym of a subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. Putting aside the issue of synonymy for now, I think the term H. erectus erectus is very misleading. The Trinil remains are the holotypes of Homo erectus as a whole, not only H. e. erectus. Almost all the sources I have read so far refer to H. erectus, not to the subspecies H. e. erectus. If we decide that the article is about Javanese hominins that are today classified as H. erectus (Dubois's Trinil finds (0.7-1.0 Ma), most of the Sangiran fossils (mostly 1.1-1.3 Ma, with a few older specimens dating to about 1.6 Ma), the Mojokerto child (ca. 1.43 Ma), and the remains of Solo Man (Middle to Upper Pleistocene), then we need to lose the H. e. erectus taxon altogether, because it is much narrower, and not widely used in reliable sources. P. erectus can then perhaps become an acceptable synonym for Javanese H. erectus in the taxobox. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the synonyms from this article. They are already listed as synonyms in the main Homo erectus article, and the argument for them not being synonyms for Java Man is sound. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"using a term that Ernst Haeckel had coined a few years earlier" What term? The genus name? Could perhaps be elaborated a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in Sangiran, Central Java, 18 km to the north of Solo." When? Is this Solo man? Should be linked then.
This is not Solo Man, just more H. erectus remains (mostly cranial) found at the Sangiran Dome, which also happens to be on the Solo River, just like Ngandong, the site where Solo Man (H. erectus from the Middle Plesitocene) was found from 1931 to 1933. I will explain this discovery in more detail the next time I edit the article (Monday at latest).
I have reorganized this section and added some more sourced content to make this more clear. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"that they should both belong to the same group." What is meant by "group"? Taxon?
Clarified: this group was the Hominidae family. I also explained Dubois's response in more detail. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"and attempted to name it Pithecanthropus modjokertensis" What bis meant by "attempted"? Either he named it, or he didn't. If he changed it later, she still named it.
Why are the names of the various fossil "men" sometimes in quotes and sometimes not?
Done
"on his suggestion that Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus interbred" How? Did he suggest they were the same taxon, or different taxa which interbred, or only able to interbreed? Based on what?
Explained more clearly on the basis of the source cited. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"reclassified them both as being part of the same species: Homo erectus" Need to stress that it was moved to a new genus, Homo, the same as modenr humans, and that the two genus name therefore became junior synonyms. Also that Duboi's species name was retained in the new binomial. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a more detailed explanation. Let me know if you find it clear enough. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded this a bit too, hopefully the change makes the idea more accessible. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Why not use a photo of a gibbon that stand on two legs, if that is the important part of the photo?
We discussed it a bit earlier, but at the very minimu, this article should at least state that the Java population of Homo erectus has been proposed to be a distinct subspecies, and attribute the idea to whoever made it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is addressed in the current version of Java_Man#Reclassification_as_Homo_erectus, it covers the idea that Mayr reclassified everything as Homo erectus, with Java Man being a subspecies. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done
"Some critics claimed that the bones were those of a walking ape" Upright walking, surely?
Done
"Others said they belonged to a primitive human." Attribution for all claims, please. Also goes for the sentence above.
Done
"Trinil bones looked like those of a "giant gibbon"" Why is this bold? it shouldn't be.
"It was in fact an ingenious argument to support it." Ingenious is loaded, and I'd attribute this to Gould. Again, attribution wherever you can, much of it is opinion of individuals.
Done
"Under Homo, he included not only Sinanthropus and Pithecanthropus" This could be reworded, "under Homo" could read as if they were subtaxa, whereas they were instead made invalid junior synonyms. Synonymised is the right word.
"And his thighbones show that he walked erect like modern humans." Why is Java Man referred to as "he" under the description section? Also, as before, this section is very inadequate, could be much more detailed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pronoun here is appropriate, the voice of the writing changes so it is talking about Java Man as an individual, I think the masculine pronoun would be appropriate here. This section does need improving tho. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done
I'm concerned that the extensive quotes under references could be considered a copyright violation. In any case, they are not needed, as long as the correct pages are cited. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
These footnotes (currently No. 29 and 35) deal with the exact relationship of the fossils to gibbons, which seems an important issue, but it would look out of place in the text. None of the direct quotes is longer than 2 or 3 sentences which is not considered a copyvio if attributed correctly. I would suggest to reduce it a little, cut some of the wordiness, maybe paraphrase most of it? --Melody Lavender 13:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some excessive verbage from the quotes, while (hopefully) retaining their meaning. If the concern persists, the quotes can be reworked out of the citations and readers can consult the original sources. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, Madalibi's only edits since October 16 have been two reversions, one early in the day on October 26, and one on November 10, so I'd say Madalibi is not there. Unless Melody Lavender's contributions end up being sufficient to address the issues you've raised—I only see two of many having been addressed—you may need to close this nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since he has edited somewhat recently, I added a note on his talk page. If I get no response within a week, I'll have to fail this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I would hate to see this nomination fail due to inactivity. I would like to take over the nomination and try to resolve the issues you have pointed out. I will comment on them shortly. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Beware that some issues require writing of additional text. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I have tried to address each of your concerns with the article. I have made specific comments below your concerns where applicable. If I can get some feedback about what progress has been made, then we can determine what future improvements might be necessary. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely won't fail now. I'll give it a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Melody and myself have given the article some expansion and polish over the last few days. Please let us know if there are any other deficiencies that should be addressed. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image caption now says the three fossils are all part of the holotype, but is this true? Do they belong to a single specimen, or is it only the skull that is the holotype? Or do they form a syntype series? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they have to belong to the same individual to form a holotype. According to the article on holotype even a drawing can be a holotype. It is not known if the three bones are from the same individual, which is mentioned in the Java Man article. But Dubois was certainly trying to describe a holotype and even though only few people believed him at the time, by now H. erectus is an established taxon and it is the Java Man that is considered the type specimen. --Melody Lavender 20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you're confusing holotype with type specimen. There are different kinds of type "specimens", with holotype being one if them, this is formed by remains (or a depiction, if there is no specimen) of a single individual. Types formed by several individuals are called syntypes. In adittion, there is stuff like lectotypes, neotypes, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you are doubting it. I didn't find anything that says it has to be a single individual (and we don't know, it might be). The situation here is much like the situation in which a holotype is defined with locus classicus being Trinil and so on. The holotype of H. erectus was described by Dubois, even if it changed the name later. The need for an explicit statement by Dubois that he considers it a holotype (definition) might be the problem. So, I think we should stick with secondary sources, and the only thing that is currently available online is the definition of Trinil 2 (cranium) as a holotype. So we'll change it to series of syntypes, and mention Trinil 2 as the holotype in the text.--Melody Lavender 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Because Java Man is the type specimen of H. erectus, it is sometimes given the name Homo erectus erectus." This makes no sense.
Can any source be found that mentions this Homo erectus erectus subspecies? What does it say? We need some clarification in the article.
"Less than ten years after 1891, almost eighty books or articles had been published on Dubois's finds" There should be no info in the intro not found in the article. Also, the lead should not need citations.
@FunkMonk: I will address these issues in the next 48 hours, as well as do another round of polishing. Let me know of any other concerns. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The behaviour stuff could warrant its own section. Physical description should be kept by itself.
@FunkMonk: Melody has added some more information about the homo erectus erectus as a type specimine, I had adjusted the wording in the intro, as well as moved the cite about 80 books in 10 years into the main article text. I also split the behaviour section into its own area. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subspecies stuff was still iffy, so I changed it myself. Any thoughts? Type specimens only represent taxa, they are not taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the corrections you have made it pretty clear. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, one last thing: Any info on where the fossils are now housed? I'm pretty sure it is at Naturalis, but it would be nice if the article explained when/how they ended up there, and even just that they are there. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this source [3] it looks like Trinil 2 is at the Smithonian. But then I've seen other conflicting pages, where it looks like the skullcap is at Leiden. It might have been a temporary exhibition.--Melody Lavender 20:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, the description of the lead image says it's been photographed in Leiden. --Melody Lavender 20:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean more than what is in the description, if anything can be found. After all, this article is mainly about those three bones. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This Dutch paper says that the fossils have been in Leiden since 1900. I have added it as a source, and I suspect that the Smithsonian was a temporary exhibition. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. So before I pass this, that info should be in the article itself, since there should never be unique info in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is in the article text. It's in the Java_Man#Post-discovery_analysis section, on "Date of the fossils". It seemed like the most logical place to sneak that in there. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:14, 3 December 2014
Ah, that's because I searched for "Naturalis", which isn't mentioned in the article. Could it be linked? FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
In that case, passed! Nice that you two dropped by to save this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting here per discussion at WT:TAFI. This was a TAFI selection beginning on on 1 July 2013 and 4 August 2014, for a period of one week (respectively). NorthAmerica1000 01:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fact from Animatronics appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
... that Walt Disney's first interest in animatronics came after he happened upon a toy animatronic bird by chance while on vacation? (TAFI)"
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently the focus of major editing by Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement and I believe it may be ready to be nominated as a good article.
Animatronics is the use of mechatronics to create machines which simulate animate life with lifelike characteristics[1
I'm not a fan of using one strange term to define another. I believe this could be simplified by removing "mechatronics", and introducing that elsewhere, likely here...
Animatronic figures are often powered by pneumatics, hydraulics, or by electrical means
Like... "Animatronic figures are mechatronic; powered by pneumatics, hydraulics, or by electrical means"
rather than artificial robotic.
Every animatronic device I've ever seen has dramatically unnatural movements. Is this really part of the definition? I ask, because neither of the linked cites make this claim.
Automated life in lifelike form is Animatronic. Early modern animatronics were often referred to as robots because the word animatronic was not yet popularized. The Slavic word robota (forced labour) was coined to describe the man-made workers central to Czech playwright Karel Čapek's 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots).[6] While robots, coined by Josef Čapek Karel's brother,[6] are used in industrial activity, "androids" (or female "gynoids") and animatronics play, entertain, teach, and amaze. With modern day labels for each, animatronic is typically reserved for non-humanoid lifelike characters; though humanoid characters can be considered animatronics, they can be labeled more precisely as robots or androids dependent on their function. All of these terms are a subset of the more general term “automaton”, coming from the Greek meaning “self-mover”.[7]
This doesn't really demonstrate the etymology of the term at all, it defines several similar terms but not this one.
I was under the impression that the term combined animated and mechatronic, while the wikionary defines it as animation and electronics.
Query: What depth should I go here? GA quality, or right to FA? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz:Hi Maury, thanks for your feedback. I'll address the issues you pointed out later this week (probably this weekend) and post again, afterwards. I think it would be reasonable to consider FA.. what do you suggest? David Condrey (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, just be aware that I'll be extra picky as a result, and that it will take a while also. But no reason not to, it's a perfect article for FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and don't forget to ping me if I don't respond. I have about 20000 pages on my watch list (really) so it's easy to miss things... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Maury Markowitz:, I have rewritten and simplified the definition. Etymology is going to take me a bit more time to figure out. Currently it's written more towards explaining how animatronic is different than robot. But I will be looking for better sources and elaborating more on the animatronic term itself. Please let me know what else you've got.. thanks! Let me know what you think of the new definition. :) David Condrey (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, WP:FACR 3. calls for non-free images to be marked in their description pages (here on WP; non-free images aren't allowed on Commons) as being used in this article and a rational to be give for their use. The images here are File:Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.jpg and File:StanWinstonTRex.jpg. I'm confident the T-Rex one will pass as there is a verbal description of its size and lifelike nature that really needs that image to be comprehensible. The Lincoln one is a bit trickier.Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln has an article of its own, and Animatronics only says that this android was built and toured and its "[b]ody language and facial motions were matched to perfection with the recorded speech" - something which the image can't even illustrate since it's not animated (therefore can't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCCP 8: Context) ). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop: I replaced the images in question with similar images of similar quality if not potentially better quality since the originally used images were debatable.
@Maury Markowitz: Regarding the etymology of the word; I made some edits to the text recommended by @Sigeng: and separated the text to make it more clear but I think that the statement The word animatronic is a subset of the more general term automaton, coming from the Greek meaning self-mover is adequate. Please let me know if you have any further thoughts on it. I just haven't been able to find anything better yet. At this point I believe all of the comments you've mentioned have been addressed and I'm going to move on to @Sigeng:'s comments. If you have anything further please let me know. Thank you very much. David Condrey (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts:
Early modern animatronics were often referred to as robots because the word animatronic was not yet popularized. I think we're trying to say that "robot" was once a generic word that became specialized over time. People didn't use the word "animatronic" because it wasn't popularized, they didn't use it because there wasn't a need to be that specific.
Early implementations: Clocks: consider adding an introductory sentence to the effect of "While functional, early clocks were also designed as novelties and spectacles." - To make it clear that we're not picking up clocks as being mechanical automatons, but the "amusement factor" of them.
The construction begins by building the structure, by using internal structures that are often made of steel. Awkward wording especially repetition of "struct". Maybe: An animatronics character is built around an internal supporting frame, usually made of steel.
Disney has an entire research team.... Omit "entire" or maybe find out a little more about the team to demonstrate its importance.
Design section
Put analogous comparisons in quotes, e.g. "bones", "muscles", not bones as they are not literal bones.
While there are similarities to robotics engineering and biological systems, I wonder if the comparison is necessary. It may invite a nontechnical reader to carry the analogy too far, and also seems to suggest that these are the only designs. Animatronics with a very limited range of motion could be made out of styrofoam blocks with actuators rather than a skeleton frame, for example.
I think the Design section would benefit from a diagram or animation that shows an animatronic skeleton/frame, some equipment on the inside, and flexible material on the outside, showing how the mechanical motion of the frame is made to appear lifelike through the flexible covering material.
Caption for the image in this section should be updated to describe the animatronic as incomplete, or a demonstration of internals.
I suggest finding a review from a prominent film critic rather than Rotten Tomatoes. (I checked Ebert, but he pans the overexposure of the dinosaurs, so you'll need someone else.)
Rather than Students achieving a bachelors in robotics.... I don't know of bachelors in robotics as a degree; probably would be bachelor in robotics engineering or just mechanical engineering. Consider "Engineering courses relating to animatronics include:" A citation would be helpful here too. Also "foundational theory of robotics", "robotics engineering", "introduction to robotics" are fairly redundant.
@Singeng: thank you for the very thorough feedback. I've already implemented several of the points you layed out.. namely points 1 through 5. #6 regarding the usage of analogues I'm not sure of but I do think that the overall design section needs some work and think that this will likely come about in the improvement of the section as a whole.
I do very much agree that the section is in dire need of illustration but have been unable to find any adequate images currently on Wikimedia or on the internet. Though I did find numerous images I would like to use which are owned by a specialist in the industry. I actually just finished composing an email to him requesting permission to use his images. I've never emailed anyone before to ask if I could use their images.. hopefully I did ok. :)
Hi Mr. Nolan, I wanted to request if I may use some of your images on Wikipedia? I have been working on the Animatronics article featured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animatronics which is currently undergoing a peer review in order to be nominated as a featured article on Wikipedia. The details of the peer review can be seen here if you'd like to have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Animatronics/archive1 I was hoping to use some of your images which illustrate the creation of animatronics within the Design section of the Animatronics article. Your input on the actual details of the article would also be very much appreciated if you have the time your welcome to contribute to Wikipedia yourself or I'd be delighted to work with you if you would like to just let me know of any details you'd like to contribute. Thank you very much.
If he authorizes permission I will add some of the images from his gallery to the section as well as any other details if he would like to offer any additions to the article as an expert in the field.
The rest of the points you've mentioned I'll address later. If you have anything further please let me know and thanks again for the very thorough and great feedback.
I'd like to ask if anyone else would like to provide feedback on this article before I close the review process. Unless anyone else has any feedback regarding this article I will be closing the peer review once I've finished addressing the points which have been mentioned thus far. Thank you very much. David Condrey (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just got into a rather severe motorcycle accident yesterday and only have the use of 1 arm at the moment so whereas I had planned to get this finished up this week, I may have to postpone for a couple weeks while my arm heals. Just wanrted to let it be known so you don't think I've disappeared. Its just difficult to do anything efficiently when typing 1 handed. I'll be back! David Condrey (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, feel better! I intended to get back here sooner but got caught up in my own FA (are you SURE you want to go to FA?!) and only returned here now. I'll do some more reading/tweakjng this week.
Ok, I've done a bit of re-arrangement in the LEDE to gather related items together. I'd like one more paragraph there - after long experience I find that 3 or 4 paras is almost always the right number. But for now I'd like to concentrate on this:
Animatronics is the use of electronics and robotics in the creation of puppets which simulate life.[1] Animatronic creations include animals (including dinosaurs), plants and even mythical creatures.
I'm not sure what, if anything is bothering me about this. But I was thinking...
Animatronics is a branch of robotics that involves the creation of puppets which simulate life.
@Maury Markowitz:My major qualm with this is the lack of substantial reference with regard to any straight forward laymans definition of the term. All seemingly suitable references I'm able to find end up contradicting each other. My best would be something like "Animatronics is a branch of robotics that involves the creation of puppets which simulate life, though the specific boundaries as to what makes a robot classifiable as animatronic is disputed."
I hate to leave it up in the air but leaning in any one direction I think opens up a big door for conflict. I still feel confident I can get this to FA. What do you think? (ps: please ping me whenever we chat so I see your msg)David Condrey logtalk 09:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the peer review has been closed, will this article be nominated for FA? I feel that it meets all the relevant criteria. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article failed 27 December 2014; no response from nominator
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is not ready for GA so I am not going to do a full review now. However, I am not going to instant fail it as it could conceivably be brought up to standard in a reasonable period of time with some hard work. On the other hand you may prefer to take it away and work on it in slow time and resubmit it later.
Either way, I am restricting my comments here to some general remarks on the more important shortcomings.
It is not even close to being a good summary of the actual contents of the body of the article.
It also makes comments that are not found in the article body. For instance anatomy and puppetry are mentioned in the lead but not in the article.
There are numerous uncited passages. Here are a few examples (they are just examples, not a definitive list)
It is claimed Walt Disney invented the term
It is claimed that Su Song built a water clock in 1066
I also found examples of cites that do not verify the material presented. For instance, the article claims that animatronics are "typically designed to be as realistic as possible". The source for that paragraph does not support this (at least on the page cited) saying that they can be "simple or complex" and then goes on to talk about a simple reindeer cutout with a pivot in the neck on the next page.
Please respond here if you intend address the shortcomings of this article, otherwise it will be failed. SpinningSpark 16:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is about the general encyclopedia topic of international airports and as such I believe it has the potential to be a keystone article of WIkipedia. It recently passed GA nomination with only a handful of the most minor of issues and I'd like to continue improving it to featured status. David Condrey logtalk 07:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This is nowhere near ready. Reference formatting is in woefully poor shape, the Notable airports section is essentially trivia, several paragraphs are unreferenced, and the history section is much less comprehensive then I'd expect. I have doubts about most of the references. Frankly, I'm surprised this passed GAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—I'm only going to comment on the sources in the article based on the expectations of a Featured Article. As FAs should be polished and professional looking, several of the comments below will be related to formatting consistency.
Date formats in the footnotes need to be harmonized. Most of them are in "DD Month YYYY" format, but a few are in "YYYY-MM-DD" format.
Access dates are not required if there's no online link. In fact, if there is no URL in the citation template, that date will not show. (I have all of the error messages enabled, and I get |accessdate= requires |url= (help) as a result.)
Whenever possible, you should be including page numbers. Several books are being cited without page numbers, and we should not be sending our readers looking through potentially hundreds of pages of a book looking for a single factoid being cited. Just as in FN4, you can group pages together to make a single citation to one book.
I'm somewhat curious about the capitalization style in use for titles. I'm used to using Title Case over Sentence case for titles, but both are acceptable according to the MOS so long as you use one style consistently. However, I was always taught that the first letter of a title, and the first letter of a subtitle are always capitalized. --from the dawn of aviation : The Qantas Story, 1920-1995 in footnote 4 doesn't fit that rule. (Also, that hyphen should be converted to an en dash (–) in any event to follow our MOS. It's a minor typographic change that promotes consistency in how we present items base on our style guide.)
FN1: I'm not sure that the country should be bracketed when "Hersham, England" would work just as well and be more consistent with other locations that list a higher-level jurisdiction like a state or province in a federated country (Australia, Canada, the US). This whole topic should be audited throughout the footnotes for consistency. Well-known cities like New York (FN21) or Boston (FN22) can omit them, as you have done, or you can specifically include them always for consistency ("Boston, Massachusetts", FN8). If you do include them, either always spell them out (as in FN8), or always abbreviate them ("Double Bay, NSW", FN4). The key is to pick a scheme and consistently follow it. (Also, if you're going to abbreviate the state name, it should be consistent from FN to FN, "NSW" in FN4 vs. "N.S.W." in FN32.)
FN2 looks to be using {{citation}}, a Citation Style 2 template instead of Citation Style 1 like the other footnotes. CS2 uses commas to separate parts of a citation, while CS1 uses periods. These two should not be mixed.
FN2 also has its multiple authors formatted as "Learmonth, Bob; Cluett, Douglas; Nash, Joanna" while FN 8 has "Feldman, Elliot J. and Jerome Milch" and FN 28 has "Atwal, Glyn; Jain, Soumya". Using |first1=|last1=|first2=|last2= etc. in the templates keeps things orderly and consistent. If you'd like the last author to be preceded by an ampersand, there is |lastauthoramp=yes .
FN5, I don't know that the publisher is necessary. The name of the magazine should be sufficient on its own. Also, National Geographic should have an ISSN which is a general identifier that would be a better number to use than an ASIN, which is specific to amazon.com.
FN7 has no access date, unlike other online sources.
FN10: I'm not sure why the edition is bracketed here.
FN11: another CS1-vs.-CS2-type situation, but there is extraneous information included in the title. This actually looks to be a hand-crafted citation that isn't using the benefit of a template to match its format to the others.
FN12, 13, 20: these have sources published by the same government agency, but that agency's name is rendered differently when they should be rendered the same. (Personally, if there isn't another "Federal Aviation Administration out there, "U.S." or "U.S. Department of Transportation" is a bit redundant, but including it isn't exactly wrong either. It just should match.)
FN14: parts of the citation (publication name, publication date) have been lumped into the article title so they're included in the link. They should be separated out.
FN15: "Special Issue 2 ed." doesn't look right. The remainder of the footnote is also similarly odd to my eyes, but without seeing the source, I can't offer better advice in correcting it.
FN17: The dash should be a colon to separate title and subtitle. Also, if that's the 2nd edition, "2nd" would be better that "2" as in FN22. Also, which location is correct? Book citations typically only give the first city listed on the title page, not all of them.
FN19: no publisher necessary for a well-known magazine.
FN23: no location given unlike other book citations. Double check others to make sure all books have a location to accompany the publisher, or drop the locations from the other citations. (It's more typical to include them for books, so I would advise adding the missing locations.)
FN24: it looks like |website= was used with the domain address, but that parameter is for the name of a website, not its domain address. I'm usually skeptical that an organization actually uses its domain address as its website name; you're more likely to see a company name (publisher) like Amazon.com matching a domain address than a website's name (published work).
FN25: abbreviation only ("ICAO") for an organization where others are spelled out ("Federal Aviation Administration"). This would also equally apply to FN24.
FN27: no publication year, location, page number or ISBN/OCLC/some identifier.
FN29: access date lacks the day of the month.
FN30: NBC News is a publisher, not a published work. It is a division of the NBC network, and its published works are things like the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Today or Dateline: NBC. It shouldn't be rendered in italics, so it should be in |publisher= instead of |work= (or one of the aliases of that parameter.)
FN31, 34–42: no website name or publisher.
FN38: additionally, this one lacks any date, publication or access.
FN44: Airport World Magazine should be in italics. It's either the name of a magazine, which in print is italicized, or it's the name of a website that should be accorded the same rendering as the name of a published (online) work.
FN45: the publisher is redundant, much like someone listing "The New York Times. New York Times Company." It doesn't have to be removed, but it doesn't have to be retained either.
FN46&47: I realize these have different URLs, but they look like they're the same citation. Can you add some more details, like |title=9: Svalbard Airport, Svalbard, Norway and |title=15: Dammam King Fahd International Airport, Dammam, Saudi Arabia with |department=The World's 18 Strangest Airports: Gallery|work=Popular Mechanics. Also, you have no dates at all, and for an undated online source, an access date is pretty much required (and still a good idea even for dated online sources).
Another general suggestion: there's a |via= parameter that would allow you to indicate books hosted by Google Books, magazine articles archived/republished on elibrary.com, etc. It's not required, but it does enhance the footnote with a bit more of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
That covers formatting, which if you have an eye towards harmonizing the formatting from footnote to footnote for consistency, shouldn't be too hard. Using the same templates and supplying the same data in them will do most of the work for you.
The other half of a source review is an evaluation of the quality of the sources listed. In general, the sources listed pass the "sniff test". They're published by the appropriate government or international agencies, major newspapers, industry journals, major industry websites, or reputable book publishers. (At least none of the book publishers stand out as being unreliable.) I'll let other reviewers tackle the question of whether this is a representative survey of the literature on the topic as they judge the comprehensiveness of the article. You may want to spend some time replacing sources to make sure they're all "high-quality, reliable sources" as required by the criteria. It never hurts to make substitutions aiming to use the best books, journal/magazine articles, travel guides or government publications instead of some online-only sources. Imzadi 1979→ 10:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose I agree completely with Crisco, and also think that this nomination should be withdrawn or closed. As this nomination has clearly been made in good faith, I would like to offer some suggestions as well though:
Theres's currently a lack of precision over what the article covers: is this about international airports, or major airports? Not all modern international airports are very big or sophisticated (even in developed countries - Wellington International Airport is a pretty simple affair), but the article assumes that they are. The article should be focused on what makes international airports unique - eg, their immigration, security and international cargo arrangements.
The article is largely written from an developed world POV - this is most obviously demonstrated in the 'By historical event' section, but almost all the examples seem to depict how airports work in the developed world, or discuss atypical major international airports in developing countries. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll chime in one fact. My hometown is not far from Sawyer International Airport. It is not a major airport at all, but it shares a part-time customs officer with the port facilities in Marquette, Michigan, thus qualifying it for the "international" moniker. This is despite the fact that the only scheduled flights connect to other airports in the US. One of the last times that airport received international passenger flights was on September 11, 2001, after SCATANA was partially invoked, although there are occasional charter or cargo flights that original in Canada or Russia. These are the sorts of details that will fall under the comprehensiveness criterion, which I didn't evaluate in my review above. The jump from GA to FA can be a large one, because GAs only need to cover the major aspects of a topic, but FAs have to be comprehensive. Imzadi 1979→ 10:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Tks all for raising those concerns so promptly, I'll be archiving this shortly. David, I think Imzadi summed things up nicely with his final point about the gulf between GA and FA; I'd recommend that after working through the issues identified you seek a Peer Review before considering a renomination here (which must in any case be a minimum of two weeks hence, per the FAC instructions). Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article had been improved quite quickly with TAFI. Do you reckon this article deserves to be a DYK? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pithecanthropus_erectus-PeterMaas_Naturalis.jpg){kind=link}
