Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homo antecessor/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 21 January 2022 [1].

Homo antecessor

[edit]
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only great ape FAs are Solo Man and orangutan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "recorded in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca from 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago during the Early Pleistocene". This needs rearranging. The species was not recorded a million years ago.
That's how I normally word it, since it's recorded in the fossil record during this time period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supplanting the popular H. heidelbergensis in this function". popular sounds odd to me. Maybe "widely accepted"?
"more conventional"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "merely an offshoot". This is POV. It is true that we think that fossils matter more if they are of direct ancestors of modern humans, but a Wikipedia article should not says so.
NPOV is for debated subject matter. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is by people for people   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they consequently only inhabited Iberia during warm periods". This is confused. Above you say that they have only been found in Iberia, here only in warm periods, below that they went to Iberia during cold periods. Surely they must have been in Iberia all the time as it is unlikely that they could have crossed the sea to refugia in Africa.
This is explained later in the Fire section. They only inhabited Iberia during warm periods and presumably fled southeast towards the Mediterranean during cold periods   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iberia is a southern peninsula of Europe. They could only have fled north by land (not southeast as you say), which they would presumably not have done in a cold period. I only have access to the abstract of the source but it says that they probably lived on the Mediterranean coast during cold spells and recolonized Iberia via the Ebro valley (not river) when the climate warmed (not that they fled via the Ebro when it was cold as you say in the article). The implication seems to be that they died out in Iberia during cold periods and fresh groups migrated there during warm ones. This also seems to rule out the Happisburgh hominids being antecessor as it would be too cold for them there. You appear to be using sources which take different views of how cold adapted antecessor was without pointing out the contradiction.
I don't understand the contradiction with Happisburgh. They inhabited the English coastline during an interglacial as well, albeit a different stage of the interglacial. Sierra de Atapuerca is in northern Spain, if you follow the river to the mouth, you're going southeast towards the Mediterranean, so I'll re-add Mediterranean to make it clearer. I moved "(probably via the Ebro valley)" to the part about migrating in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. The climate in Iberia at the height of the last ice age is described in [2] as 'temperate dry steppe'. Happisburgh is 1000 miles further north and it seems unlikely that the climate there in "the cooler beginning or end of an interglacial" would be better than in Spain during a glacial, so if they could stand Happisburgh they would not have needed to abandon inland Iberia. 2. I see that Atapuerca is at the north west end of the Ebro valley, but I was taking you to mean Iberia in general - presumably there must have been many other populations. I think it would be clearer to say that they migrated from the high inland plateaus to the coast without mentioning Ebro. 3. The Waalian interglacial dates to before antecessor. See [3]. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "They may have followed water bodies while migrating, in the case of Sierra de Atapuerca, most likely the Ebro River." The source specifically says Waalian Interglacial. As for Happisburgh, they didn't necessarily have to stay in England all year long as Britain wasn't an island at the time. I can add more about Happisburgh if you'd like using [4], I wasn't sure how in depth I should go since the site is only associated with H. antecessor by chronology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Migration looks fine to me now. The source for the Waalian is 2008 and may be out of date. The table I linked to above produced by the International Commission on Stratigraphy dates the Waalian to 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. Happisburgh would have been cold even in summer during the transition to or from a glacial, but I see that you suggest above that antecessor was probably cold adapted, so maybe the high inland plateau was too dry during ice ages, not too cold. I do not think you need any more about Happisburgh as the association is merely based on the lack of any known alternative. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya, and it's not like temperature plummets that much even after 100,000 years. The average temperature of Happisburgh today is warmer than what's predicted for Gran Dolina then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say the source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya. Current thinking is a bit earlier but either way it is before the antecessor dates of 1.2 to 0.8 mya. Also all sources say the Waalian is north-west European, so it is not relevant to Iberia. We have to use our judgment what to quote from sources, not use them uncritically. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to do it like that we can't mention any glacial period beyond northern Europe or the Alps, which is unhelpful. Like should we delete mention of the Eemian in Solo Man since it usually refers to northern Europe and not Indonesia?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the source explains why the Iberian Mediterranean coast could not have provided refugia? After all, Gorham's Cave is in Iberia, it is the southern most point in Europe and it was occupied by the Neanderthals. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's because I left out the word "inland". Oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was first explored for fossils by archaeologist Francisco Jordá Cerdá [es] in a short field trip to the region in 1966, who recovered a few animal fossils and stone tools". I think where he recovered would be grammatically better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and found human remains 2 years later". Presumably additional archaic human fossils as you say they had been found two years earlier?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This recovered nearly 100 specimens". Presumably human fossil bones but it would be helpful to says so.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were discovered in Happisburgh". No change needed, but is it known how the temperatures compared during warm periods in England and cold periods in Iberia? If they could survive at any time in northern England then surely they would have no trouble at any time in Iberia?
added to the Fire section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2001, French palaeoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin postulated (without a formal analysis) the Gran Dolina remains and the contemporaneous Tighennif remains from Algeria (usually classified as Homo ergaster or Homo erectus, originally "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus") represent the same population". I think it should be "postulated...that", but the sentence has too many subclauses for easy reading.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2003, American palaeoanthropologist Chris Stringer echoed this concern." This raises several points. 1. Stringer is British. 2. "echoed this concern" is vague and unclear. I take it you mean that he agreed with Hublin, but you should say so. 3. You only cite the refutation of these views. I do not think this is valid. You should check and cite the original papers to be sure that they have not been misinterpreted.
I did, Stringer didn't say anything in specific, just acknowledged someone said H. antecessor =? H. mauritanicus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stringer just included it in a list of the views on the subject. That is not echoing a concern. I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I included Stringer because Castro specifically accredits the usage of "H. mauritanicus" to only Hublin and Stringer, "Some authors have considered the possibility of combining the two samples in the same species: H. mauritanicus (Hublin 2001; Stringer 2003)."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stringer wrote "Some workers prefer to lump the earlier records together and recognize only one widespread species, H. erectus2 (shown in a). Others recognize several species, with H. ergaster and H. antecessor (or H. mauritanicus) in the West, and H. erectus only in the Far East". You say "Chris Stringer echoed this concern". It was not a concern but a mention of one theory in a list of theories. Stringer did not echo a concern. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of species names is a concern, so by saying H. antecessor =? H. mauritanicus he is echoing this concern. He could've just ignored Hublin entirely   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because the type specimen was a child so the supposedly characteristic features could have disappeared with maturity". This is ungrammatical. I would delete "so".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues suggested the modern humanlike face evolved independently several times among Homo." This is uncited.
oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stratigraphy and family tree diagrams are uncited.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old specimen" The child not the specimen is 10-11.5 years old.
what's the difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The specimen is about one million years old. I would replace "specimen" with "child". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old specimen ATD6-69 is strikingly similar to modern humans (as well as East Asian Middle Pleistocene archaic humans) as opposed to West Eurasian or African Middle Pleistocene archaic humans or Neanderthals". This is vague. Which archaic humans? Why the distinction between them and Neanderthals? Neanderthals were a species of archaic humans.
We see two sentences down "The most notable traits are a completely flat face and a curved zygomaticoalveolar crest (the bar of bone connecting the cheek to the part of the maxilla which holds the teeth)". Neanderthals are not Middle Pleistocene. Middle Pleistocene Western Eurasian and African specimens are conventionally assigned to H. heidelbergensis, but in Europe some people wanna classify certain populations as late H. erectus, and in Africa rhodesiensis, late ergaster, helmei, and recently bodoensis. This time period is called the "muddle in the middle" because there's no wide agreement on species classification, which I think is better discussed at Homo heidelbergensis. Sometimes I see authors not mentioning species names at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Neanderthals were Middle Pleistocene, which ran from 770 to 126 thousand years ago. However, I accept that it is correct to refer to West Eurasian and African species without specifying since as you say there are several and no agreement. What is the position on East Asian? I only know of erectus. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's like calling H. sapiens Middle Pleistocene, technically true but when you just say the name you generally think of late-sapiens. The Middle Pleistocene of East Asia is even less resolved. I see some people wanting to lump them into heidelbergensis, but opponents don't offer an alternative. We know there were the Denisovans but we don't know what they looked like. Someone recently erected Homo longi and revived "H. daliensis" so now there's more names to argue over. Some fossils have been assigned to H. erectus with little debate, Nanking Man, Solo Man, Peking Man, etc. but certainly there're a lot of fossils that can't be comfortably classified into H. erectus.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though, African Middle Pleistocene humans (the direct ancestors of modern humans) would later evolve this condition." This is ungrammatical.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The upper incisors are shovel-shaped (the tongue side is distinctly concave), characteristic of other Eurasian human populations." Maybe "a feature which is characteristic".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An adult radius, ATD6-43, which could be male based on absolute size or female based on gracility, was estimated to have been 172.5 cm (5 ft 8 in) tall " A radius was 5' 8" tall?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the radius is "oddly long and straight for an archaic human" and explain it "as retention of the ancestral long-limbed tropical form". Isn't this a contradiction as retention of ancestral form would not be odd?
It's odd because it wasn't retained in contemporary or later archaic humans beyond Africa and southeast Asia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe clearer if you said unlike other contemporary Eurasian archaic humans? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It is oddly long and straight for someone from so far north"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other archaic humans, the femur features". This is ungrammatical.
how?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A femur is a bone, not a human. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The long trochlea caused a short neck of the talus." This is incomprehensible to a non-expert and the term are not linked.
glossed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2010, Castro and colleagues approximated ATD6-112, represented by a permanent upper and lower first molar, died between 5.3 and 6.6 years of age". "estimated that" would be better than "approximated".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "The specimen ATD6-69 has an ectopic M3 (upper left third molar)". What does ectopic mean here. Can it be linked? It does not seem to be Ectopic enamel, which is the only dental use of the term I can find.
As it says in the next clause "where it erupted improperly"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
where implies location, not definiton. You need to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfectly valid use of where, like you could say "he has a disorder where his hip locks up when he stands up"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[Acheulean]] [[industry]] is MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Maybe [[Acheulean|Acheulean industry]].
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they were butchering humans for nutritional purposes (presumably under dire circumstances)". No change needed, but "under dire circumstances" seems to go against the other comments, and perhaps reflects researchers' unwillingness to accept evidence that any species of humans practised cannibalism as a matter of course for food. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no, there's clear documented evidence of cannibalism. The main issue is ritual cannibalism, that is, if other human species were even capable of this level of thinking   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much in two minds about this article. Dunkleosteus77 is doing excellent work bringing articles on Homo species up to a high standard, but in a few cases I think the use of sources is wrong and as the article is mainly based on ones I do not have access to I can only do very limited checking. There are two statements I am particularly concerned about.
1. A theory of Hublin is described and then it is stated that "Chris Stringer echoed this concern". This struck me as odd on two counts, firstly that Hublin had proposed a theory, not expressed a concern, and secondly that it did not sound like the way that Stringer would have expressed himself. As this is one of the few sources I have access to I checked it and found that Stringer just included Hublin's view in a list of theories without expressing an opinion on it. Dunkleosteus77 replied that "validity of species names is a concern". This is true but I do not think that a reader would take "Chris Stringer echoed this concern" in this sense, and FunkMonk took it as agreement with Hublin's theory. Dunkleosteus77 replied that Stringer had been rebutted, which is wrong. Stringer was not rebutted as he never supported Hublin.
2. A fossil of antecessor was found in layer TE9 and the article says "TE9 similarly indicates a generally warm climate, corresponding to the Waalian interglacial." The article dates antecessor as 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago. Some older sources date the Waalian as overlapping with this period but it is currently dated 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. I queried the mention of the Waalian and Dunkleosteus77 replied "The source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya, and it's not like temperature plummets that much even after 100,000 years." I do not agree that it is correct to date a layer with antecessor to a period which ended at least 100,000 years earlier.
These are both relatively minor points, but in view of my limited access to sources I prefer at present to wait and see what other reviewers say. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps requesting a thorough spot-check would clear things up? FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's this source from 2017 says, "The earliest evidence of North Sea glaciation is Menapian (c. 1.2 Ma)", and the Menapian is the glacial period following the Waalian. Though it cites much older articles, it looks like even northern Europe didn't really start freezing over for a long time after the Waalian, so it's accurate to ascribe the warm climate to the Waalian. By even including "H. mauritanicus", Stringer is echoing Hublin's concern that antecessor is a junior synonym. Stringer could've just as easily chosen to include "H. cepranesis", but he didn't. Castro 2007 specifically calls out only these 2 publications, "other researchers have preferred to use the denomination H. mauritanicus (Hublin 2001; Stringer 2003). Furthermore, Hublin (2001) and Stringer (2003) have considered that the human fossils recovered from Aurora Stratum of the level TD6 in the Gran Dolina site of the Sierra de Atapuerca (Carbonell et al. 1995) could be also included in H. mauritanicus (considering the priority of the name assigned by Arambourg)."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"North Sea glaciation". Attributing antecessor to the Waalian is not only the wrong period, it is the wrong area. The 2008 source says "This could tentatively correlate with the Waalian", unlike the definite statement in the article. This may have been considered valid by the authors in 2008, but Menapian and Waalian are north-west European stages and changes between warm and cool climates are not necessarily at the same time in diffferent areas. The Italian Mediterranean Marine stages are probably more relevant to Spain and antecessor falls in the Sicilian stage in this series. See [5]. As I have pointed out more than once, Hublin did not express a concern, he put forward a theory. Stringer wrote "Some workers prefer to lump the earlier records together and recognize only one widespread species, H. erectus. Others recognize several species, with H. ergaster and H. antecessor (or H. mauritanicus ) in the West, and H. erectus only in the Far East." He was just citing Hublin as a splitter as opposed to lumpers who see only one species across Eurasia. Castro's mischaracterisation of Stringer's comment is not relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make valid taxonomic opinions on a specimen you didn't see yourself. I removed the Waalian since you feel very strongly about it. The Sierra de Atapuerca is not Mediterranean either, if you have a problem with using northern Europe then you can't use Mediterranean timelines Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of taxa have been named by authors who didn't examine the specimens first-hand, that is certainly not a criterion. It is preferred, yes, but there are no "rules" against it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would you rewrite the paragraph? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could refer to Calabrian as the worldwide stage but it is better just to delete Waalian as you have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, about Stringer Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete the sentence about Stringer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Alright, I was waiting for Dudley as to not cover the same ground, but since he's gotten far, I'll begin soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link anatomical terms like maxilla, frontal bone, etc., in article body and image captions.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(to see if the unit warrants further investigation)" Warranted?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sierra de Atapuerca had long been known to be abundant in fossil remains." State this is i Spain and in what region.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described as a new species, Homo antecessor." Explain the meaning of the name in the paragraph about its naming. I see you explain it much further down, but the reader would expect to see it earlier.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2007, a human molar was recovered from the nearby Sima del Elefante ("elephant pit") in layer TE9 ("trinchera elefante"), belonging to a 20–25 year old individual. This was also classified into H. antecessor." Why not just say "In 2007, a H. antecessor molar was recovered"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have not even produced human fossils at all" Why is "even" and "at all" necessary? "have not produced" means the same, and is less wordy.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any code cladogram?
  • "so the original describers (Castro and colleagues)" Why not just keep it simple, "so in their original description, Castro and colleagues classified it as..."?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link words like stratigraphy, H. heielbergensis, and Neanderthal in article body. Words linked in the intro should be linked again in the article body.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supplanting H. heielbergensis" Missing d.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and found the Tighennif remains are much larger than" To be would look more natural.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frido Welker is German or Dutch, not Danish. Seems he moved to Denmark for research purposes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The end of the classification section makes the status of the species unclear. Has it been suggested to be a subspecies of H. ergaster?
no, but most all human species are thought to descend from H. ergaster/erectus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues" Missing nationality.
  • You show a 2012 cladogram by Stringer, but you don't elaborate on the study in-text. It seems to contradict the earlier claim that he advocated for synonymy.
Stringer mentioned synonym in 2003 and was rebutted in 2007, so I don't see any contradiction if he supports antecessor in 2012   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But none of that is stated clearly (rebuttal? And Stringer changing opinion?) in the article, so it seems it could benefit from some elaboration for each study. "Rebuttals" rarely lead to rival taxonomic researchers changing opinions, so that is significant in itself. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stringer did not advocate synonym, he just included it in a list of theories without expressing an opinion, so he could not have been rebutted. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, I think the 2012 study should be summarised in-text, and it seems there is something that needs reinterpretation from the earlier studies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn’t describe it as a rival taxonomic opinion, it’s just Hublin and Stringer said “someone should investigate this” and then someone did so that was that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then Stringer's 2012 should still be covered in-text? FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's mainly giving a brief summary on archaic human introgression. What exactly are you looking for? The graphic is there because it's easy to understand and I can't really do chronospecies using wikitext cladograms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You now only say "In 2003, British palaeoanthropologist Chris Stringer echoed this concern" What I'm looking for is an in-text sentence that states what his 2012 view was for contrast. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He never mentions H. antecessor in-text, only in the picture. Again, the picture is only there for illustrative reasons   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about stating the result of his cladogram in-text here, which is routinely done in articles that summarise classification history. For example "In 2012, Stringer published a cladogram showing antecessor as a distinct lineage" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Singling random people out in-text seems unnecessary just because a graphic is used, especially since everything from that source relevant to this article is in the caption. Like I also mentioned Hublin, should I try to find a more recent cladogram by him? Or maybe talk about one of Stringer's more recent cladograms instead?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is random about describing a newer study by a researcher you've already discussed? The way you've written the classification is as a chronological dialogue between studies. Therefore, it makes little sense to arbitrarily leave out one such study, especially when it contradicts something stated earlier, such as Stringer having a particular view. Now it looks like an oversight and inconsistency. If there are more studies that have been left out, by all means mention them in the text and their findings. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically every Homo cladogram since description includes antecessor, it would be impractical to discuss every single one of them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've removed mention of Stringer from the article body, it looks less jarring. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the holotype? Should be mentioned already where the naming is discussed, now it's only mentioned in passing further down.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Growth rate and pathology isn't really anatomy?
if all you have are bones, yeah they are, because you can only study them by seeing how the anatomy is altered. In the absence of blood cell count and the like, clinical pathology is impossible; all we have here is anatomical pathology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would later evolve this condition." You haven't mentioned any condition. Say "evolve a similar morphology"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old child ATD6-69" As this is the beginning of a new section, I think you could name the subject of the article, like "year old H. antecessor child ATD6-69" for clarity.
this isn't the first time ATD6-69 is being mentioned   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the concern, it is just good to name the subject of the article at the beginning of a new section for context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the alveolar part (adjacent to the teeth) is completely vertical" And is that also modern human like? Doesn't say now.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a feature characteristic of other Eurasian human populations" Including modern humans?
yup   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
State it clearly, then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tongue side" I wonder if "inwards side" would be more understandable?
I think tongue and lip side make more sense   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link and explain derived.
I did "like derived species, but retain... like more archaic species"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a link. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cingulum (towards the base)" This doesn't describe what it is, only where.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bust doesn't make much sense where it is now by the torso section, since it shows a child, perhaps move it to growth rate, which doesn't have images?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on the correlation among modern Indian people" Why Indian people in particular?
that's the data the study had available to use. There's no real specific reason   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as this bone rarely ever fossilises for archaic humans." This is a bit oddly worded, as if the bone itself was not likely to fossilise, rather it is by chance? You could say this is just rarely found?
I assumed it was preservation bias because these bones are small and hollow and so would be too brittle to fossilize. Are you saying it's statistical bias?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what does the source say? If it's ambiguous, we should be too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The research section could have a list of what parts of the skeleton is known. I know they are mentioned here and there under anatomy, but it's not possible to get a brief overview there.
Needs response. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sternum is narrow. The acromion (which extends over the shoulder joint) is small." And is this similar to modern humans or? It is hard to know what these descriptions mean without comparison to anything else.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that the age of first molar eruption occurred at roughly this age" Redundancy, why not just "and that first molar eruption occurred at roughly this age"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is oddly long and straight for someone from so far north" Add "of this time" or similar.
this would include modern populations too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the possible use of some of these stone tools be explained?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Freezing temperatures could have been hit from November to March" Looks like the "been" is unnecessary.
I don't think so because you would say, "Freezing temperature were hit" so you have to say "could have been"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the wording is a bit confusing, "reached" might be clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only a very short part of the "fire" section is about fire, the overall theme of the section (over two thirds) seems to be response to the climate, and it should be renamed accordingly.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sixteen species were recorded" Specify animal species. "Species" can refer to anything.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a mammoth" Which species?
Mammuthus sp.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then add "of undetermined species". FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an issue when I said "a lynx" or "rhinos", etc., why specifically mammoths?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can state it for the others too, why not? Would be more consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in two instances toothmarks overlapping cutmarks" Of what animals?"
unidentified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is stated specifically, mention it so it doesn't read like an omission. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sima del Elefante site" What elephant does this name refer to?
I'm finding Proboscidea indet. from the youngest fossil-bearing unit p. 338  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If these are thought to be distinct from the mammoths, it would be worth listing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is relevant to this article since elephant bones aren't even in the H. antecessor unit   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olive and oak are linked at second instead of first mentions.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are no complete skull" Is this plural or singular?
skulls   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where the human bones with cutmarks found along animal bones with cutmarks? Seems important to note if the case.
animal and human bones were all randomly mixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be stated clearly then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where the discovery is discussed, or taphonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any photos of cannibalised specimens? There seem to be photos of two jaw fragments on Commons not used in the article at least.
they were probably all cannibalized   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, show them in the section? You haven't used images of these specimens[6][7], if one of them has specifically been mentioned as having been cannibalised, it could be used in that otherwise empty section. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of them really show the cut marks very well, like the holotype also is cut up but from the available photos it's impossible to see   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would just be a good opportunity to show skeletal elements otherwise not shown now we do have available images of them. For example showing the upper jaw or what it is, and saying in the caption that it, like most of the other fossils, are thought to come from cannibalised individuals. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hemimandible photo is already used in Anatomy, and I haven't read anything about cut marks on the Sima del Elefante remains (sorry when I said all I meant just the TD6 ones). I put it in Research history Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca" Add "site".
wouldn't say "in the Atapuerca Mountains site"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just anything to identify what it is. It's article says "Archaeological site of Atapuerca", for example. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave the English translation. I don't understand the issue, like it's mountains   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To explain that it is a archaeological site, like its article does even in the title. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"recorded in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca, a productive archaeological site..." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in this function" It isn't really a function, but a position.
done
  • "as merely an offshoot" Very subjective to say "merely".
at the end of the day, Wikipedia is by humans for humans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very loaded word and wouldn't be fit for a biography of a person either. If the source doesn't use it, we shouldn't either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though these elements are known only from a juvenile specimen." The article body should specify this too.
the Skull section already starts off with "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old child ATD6-69"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't say it is the only such element known from the species, which is what I'm asking for. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which later becomes ubiquitous" Better to stay in past tense, like the surrounding text.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this comment is in the wrong section? FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This nomination has now been open for a month and while it has attracted a reasonable amount of attention it is showing little sign of a consensus for promotion forming. Unless this changes significently over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some further responses above, and with some compliance, I should be able to support soon. Perhaps Dudley is at a similar stage. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's finals week for me, I'll try to address the comments over the weekend   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Should I try to find more reviewers? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dunkleosteus77 and apologies for missing your ping. Yes, this nomination needs further reviews and a source review as soon as possible. I have added it to Urgents and requested a source review, but if you could round up either yourself - in, of course, a neutrally phrased request - that may save the nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • I'm on it, I will try to do both a content and source review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Homo antecessor (Latin "pioneer") – This may seem obvious to us, but I think we need to be correct nonetheless: "Pioneer" is only the translation of "antecessor", not of "Homo"?
Should I say Latin "pioneer man"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"pioneer man" seems to be the most commonly used. I would personally prefer "human pioneer" or "pioneer of modern humans", but you should choose what the sources say. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the source doesn't include the "man" part in the translation in etymology Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it refers to antecessor and not to Homo antecessor, which is what you are doing. This was my whole point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the more conventional H. heidelbergensis – I don't like "conventional" here, what does it add?
the consensus before antecessor was discovered Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
supplanting H. heidelbergensis in this position is more than clear and says everything, why to you need this "conventional"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it wouldn't be clearer to someone who's never seen the name H. heidelbergensis Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, but it is a minor point so I can leave it to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populations may have been present elsewhere in Western Europe – I suggest "Populations of the species" for extra clarity.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a single publication listed under "further reading", in Spanish. Is this really the best text on the topic that exists, or is there something in English we can offer as well?
it's the best layman's summary (up to 2002) I would say since it's written by de Castro. Unfortunately for the English-speaking world, the man (and the discovery) is Spanish Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced Atapuerca with the UNESCO page and removed Smithsonian, but I think keeping Happisburgh is a good idea since it isn't discussed in too great detail in this article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to a wealth of bear fossils, he also recovered archaic human fossils – Unclear: at Gran Dolina or at Sima de los Huesos?
better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • by Spanish palaeontologist Emiliano Aguirre – sometimes you give nationality and profession, sometimes only the profession, and sometimes nothing at all when new names appear. Could be consistent.
I mean the proceeding names are also Spanish paleontologists, seems like a lot of repetition for something that should be self-evident Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 years later, – why not "two years later"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 25 m (82 ft) of Pleistocene sediments at the Gran Dolina are divided into 11 units, – Might not be clear to everybody that layers are meant, and not spatial units. You could use "layers" instead of "units" to make this clearer, and avoid one technical term?
probably not a good idea because the taphonomy section talks about the layers in the TD6 unit Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then you should define this unit somehow, otherwise this information is somehow useless. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you want here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If these units are not the same as "layers", as you say, what, then, are these units? Obviously, the reader needs to know this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what would you put down? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how "units" are defined here, so I can't make a suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want from me? Unit is just a broad division of rock. It's not an unintelligible word that's impossible to comprehend, and then I go on to say it's divided into subunits and layers so those are already explained enough to understand the sentence. Where exactly are you getting tripped up? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for the criterion used to define the units. This may be vertically (i.e., one unit consists of several layers); horizontally (one unit consists of an particular area); or based on facies (one unit consists of a particular rock type). Which of these? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's divided into 13 layers (vertically) and alternatively 9 facies Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first field season 1994–1996 excavated – either a "team" excavated, or use passive "was excavated".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • which may represent at least six individuals – "may" and "at least" are contradicting each other.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Happisburgh fossil trackway with a camera lens cap for scale – I don't think there is a trackway, just isolated tracks?
fixed
  • Might be worth it to explain "facies" in a gloss, since the term appears quite frequently and is difficult.
I can only think of "distinctive unit" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"a body of rock with specified characteristics"? Just that the reader gets an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"bodies of rock distinctive from adjacent bodies" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link debris flow?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a floodplain-related geological process – why not simply "a flooding river"?
"low-energy debris flow" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • , further constrained palaeomagnetically – "and" missing?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • mya needs link
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and dentally similar to other African populations – jargon? Can this be reformulated to avoid the "dentally"?
I mean, is "dental features" too jargony too? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that sounds much clearer / is more common, but I'm not a native speaker. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (without a formal analysis), Castro and colleagues formally investigated the matter – How do you decide what is "formal" and what is "informal"?
As in, Hublin looked at the list of published diagnostic features of H. antecessor and the published details on Tighennif. Castro described it as "these authors did not present a formal study to defend their alternative" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since he is commenting on the other paper, he is not really an neutral source in this aspect? I would just remove "formal" and "informal". I don't see why a study would be "informal". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human family tree according to Chris Stringer, 2012, – This hypothesis by Chris Stringer is not even mentioned in the text, why?
it's just there for the easily digestible diagram, his opinion is written a thousand times over, no sense detailing every single one of them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So this is identical to the hypothesis of Richard Klein? That does not become clear; I think the reader needs to know which of the hypotheses discussed in the text this represents. Problematically, the text only mentiones H. ergaster, not H. erectus as seen in the diagram. So, as it currently is, I think it confuses people. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ergaster is sometimes synonymized with erectus, that's why the text reads "usually classified as Homo ergaster or Homo erectus" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but my point remains; this can be made clearer by inserting a sentence to the caption (and maybe mention both erectus and ergaster) to make this clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should I put down, "erectus at the base of the tree is sometimes called ergaster"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably include reference to the hypothesis explained in the main text, to make the connection, and explain what is to be seen; it might be enough to include (=H. ergaster) in brachets while mentioning H. erectus). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(usually classified as Homo ergaster [=? Homo erectus], originally "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus") Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only asking to make things clearer to the general reader. They were not immediately clear to me, so I think there might be others which are just as stupid. It is easy to fix, and I offered more than one way to do it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what you're saying then. What is meant by "it might be enough to include (=H. ergaster) in brachets while mentioning H. erectus"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have requested several times know, simply include Stringer in the main text, stating that he sees H. antecessor as an offshot of H. erectus (=?H. ergaster, here we have it), and that should also appear in the image caption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: H. antecessor has since been reinterpreted as an offshoot, though probably one branching off just before the modern human/Neanderthal split. – The section "classification" contains no claim that this is accepted as a consensus. What was the source here? Just the two studies from 2017 and 2020?
Well the people who first claimed it's a direct ancestor came back and said it probably wasn't so this seems like an accurate characterization Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that contradicts the Stringer diagram? As said, it is simply confusing, you need to make the connection to the text. Maybe, in the diagram, supplement the caption with "A similar hypothesis was presented by Klein, while two more recent studies instead propose a position close to the modern human/Neanderthal split" or something. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's not a contradiction, just naming conventions. If the split happened a million years ago, you'd still never classify a million year old skull as H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You write "though probably one branching off just before the modern human/Neanderthal split", that is surely not what is shown in the diagram? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a really confusing visual representation if there were 3 separate lines a millionish years ago all titled H. heidelbergensis, and then at a random point later down each line gets a new name Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my point. Your article says: In 2009, American palaeoanthropologist Richard Klein stated he was skeptical that H. antecessor was ancestral to H. heidelbergensis, interpreting H. antecessor as "an offshoot of H. ergaster [from Africa] – this means these are two separate hypotheses, and I think the diagram shows the latter. Hence my concern. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what do you think the 2nd hypothesis is? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That H. antecessor was ancestral to H. heidelbergensis, stated in the sentence I just cited. All I'm asking is to expand the image caption, explaining what is to be seen. That hypothesis A is shown and not hypothesis B. Or, even better, just what I had originally suggested: Include a short mention of the Stringer study in the main text (e.g., "which has also been suggested by Stringer in 2012" or something like that would suffice). On what basis are you selecting the studies you cite in any case? Shouldn't we cite all of them when we work with primary sources only? The Stringer paper is a Nature paper, that is not insignificant at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the people who proposed that hypothesis recanted "In 2017, Castro and colleagues conceded that H. antecessor may not be a modern human ancestor". That's why in the lead it reads very definitively "H. antecessor has since been reinterpreted as an offshoot" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stringer family tree does not seem to show the most "probable" hypothesis offered by the article, but seems to be outdated? Because this is the only tree given in the article, that could be misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most probable family tree? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"though probably one branching off just before the modern human/Neanderthal split" – if this isn't the "most probable", then you shouldn't state this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues statistically determined that these features would not disappear with maturity, H. antecessor suggests the modern human face evolved and disappeared multiple times in the past, which is not unlikely as facial anatomy is strongly influenced by diet and thus the environment. – extremely long sentence, and interpunctuation seems off.
typo, fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nasal bones are like that of modern humans – those?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • retromolar space (a large gap between the last molar and the end of the mandible). – explanation is wrong (not to the "end of the mandible" but to the front margin of the ascending ramus of the mandible)
"end of the body of the mandible" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • like derived species – derived relative to what? "more derived"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • bearing a lingual cusp (on the tongue side), – You used "tongue side" before without using "lingual". So why not be consistent here and simply say "bearing a cusp on the tongue side"?
it's nice to have the actual term there Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but then you should provide it at first mention of the term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The P3 (the first lower premolar) crowns are strongly asymmetrical and have complex tooth root systems – A tooth crown does not have a root, per definition.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • P3 is smaller than P4 like more derived species, – "in more derived species"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The P3 (the first lower premolar) – Why is P3 the first and not the third?
it'd be pretty confusing for someone not caught up on dental abbreviations if I say the third premolar and they only count 2 in their mouth Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 162.3–186.8 cm (5 ft 4 in–6 ft 2 in), mean of 174.5 cm (5 ft 9 in), – do we really need both? Not sure about the second (the mean of what?), I think it just confuses and would remove.
it's a really wide range though Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something I don't understand it seems. The lead says "Various stature estimates range from 162.3–186.8 cm", so that implies there are separate studies, but later you only cite one (and a range is still a single estimate). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that as in the stature estimates of various specimens, but the clavicle has such a wide range it's both the highest and lowest estimate based on fossils Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Understood. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on metatarsal (toe bone) – metatarsals are not toe bones.
close enough Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But incorrect. Just say "foot bone" or something. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incomplete radius, ATD6-43, (a forearm bone) – explanation should appear at first mention of the term, not here.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
modern and archaic Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • lithics – link/explain? Or just replace with "stone tools" to reduce number of technical terms?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lower part of TD6.3 (TD6 subunit 3), 84 lithics were recovered, – As this is the first sentence of the technology paragraph, it reads as if these would be the only lithics. But that is not the case, and this is confusing. I think this section needs one or two introductory sentences for context.
I moved the last paragraph to first Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These early Europeans probably physiologically withstood the cold, such as by eating a high-protein diet or supporting a heightened metabolism. – I think it is important to make the connection to the lack of fire use here, as this is the reason the paper is talking about it. Something like "Instead of fire use, these early Europeans probably withstood the cold by eating a high-protein diet".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eighty adult and child H. antecessor specimens from the Gran Dolina exhibit cut marks, crushing, burning, and other trauma indicative of cannibalism, – How can they show burning when they didn't use fire?
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the opening sentence to "Eighty young adult..." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Source 1: You include quotes at the end of this cite. Never saw such a thing, is it covered by the WP:MOS?
I vaguely remember someone in a past FAC wanted more quotes in the references Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and ok, then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title case should be consistent (e.g., used in source 2 where it should not be; only use title mode for book titles)
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 3: I think we always need to list all the authors, without using "et al."
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journals should be written out (e.g., "J. Hum. Evol.")
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falguères, Christophe; Bahain, J.; – inconsistent: Sometimes names are abbreviated, sometimes they are not.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 16: I don't understand the "Chris Stringers' hypothesis of the family tree of genus Homo", is this supposed to be a title? What does WP:MOS say?
What the hell?? removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2020-04-01) – Dates could be consistent (I think just the year is enough when it comes to papers).
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dental proteome of Homo antecessor" – the species needs to be in italics.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all concerning reference formatting. I only listed the first instance of each problem I found; most of these issues appear several times in the references list. All sources seem to be of high quality and reliable; spot check will follow soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • Source 28: Almost checks, but: "Ectopia of the wisdom teeth is a common condition in modern humans due to the progressive shortening of the jaws over time, as high as 50% in some populations." – The source says impaction, not ectopia.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 9: "In the lower part of TD6.3 (TD6 subunit 3), 84 lithics were recovered, predominantly small, unmodified quartz pebbles" – Can't find this in the source. The paper says 28 lithic pieces in the lower part of TD6.3? Where does it say that most are quartz?
typo, it's actually quartzite "Complete and fractured pebbles account for 61% of the assemblage (n = 17), which means that most of the Lower-TD6.3 material is percussive. This may explain the dominance of fluvial raw materials in this group, particularly quartzite (c. 65%)." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"84 lithics were recovered" – I still can't find this in the source? Please help me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For stratigraphic reasons, the source breaks up the discussion of TD6.3 into 2 subsections about the upper and lower deposits, the upper with 56 and the lower with 28 lithics, which adds up to 84 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 29: Checks mostly apart from two details: the "well" in "from a fire well outside the cave" does not seem to be supported (the only thing they say is outside the cave, with no information on how far outside). Also: "In other parts of the world" does not seem to be supported as they are talking about Europe only.
The source also discusses African and Asian records Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But where the fact is mentioned, they only refer to Europe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says "The European signal for fire use aligns well with what we know from other continents [Asia and Africa], where indications for habitual use of fire are present from the second half of the Middle Pleistocene onward. As in Europe, fire seems to have become a maintainable technology between ∼400 and 200 ka" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say "in other words," fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]
  • This seems to have stalled, but I note that the nominator has not edited at all for eleven days. Which is a little concerning. So, fellow coordinators, perhaps we could give it a few more days? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2022 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Homo_antecessor/archive1&oldid=1067042861"