Wikipedia:Peer review/Neanderthal/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neanderthal[edit]

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

I'm trying to get this to GA, and it's a really big and well-researched topic, so naturally the article (if it ever were to achieve a stamp of completeness) is also quite big. Likewise, it's more than probable that there are some topics that I missed and could elucidate some more, or even just grammatical problems my eyes glossed over. Neanderthals are an archaic human from Europe, and, especially in the last couple of decades, are coming to be seen by researchers as equals to humans in cognitive and cultural aspects. I'm not aware of an GAs of anything from the human lineage   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • Final paragraph of Etymology: You have a lot of speech marks when (I think) you're just quoting words-as-words, meaning you should use italics only.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is written in British English, you should avoid false titles.
  • "However, they met opposition namely" Who is the they in this sentence?
clarified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as it is generally used to distinguish two genetically isolated populations" That's vague. You're referring (roughly) to the biological species concept, but there's no grand consensus that this is the appropriate way to define species; it doesn't work well for lots of non-animals, for instance.
hence "the vagueness of the term 'species'"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph of the classification section is a tough read.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are your dashes consistent with MOS:DASH? Personally, I wouldn't get too excited about this at GAC, but it's certainly something that could arise at FAC.
They are now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as marine isotope stages 8 and 6" Could this be explained?
I added the dates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "genetic burden" jargon? It's not a phrase I know.
I thought it seemed rather self-explanatory given it's in the context of inbreeding and birth defects   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a plural/singular issue in the first paragraph of the "build" section. It doesn't quite read right.
It seems right. It switches from 1 chest to multiple forelimbs because the average person has more than one limb   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but multiple Neanderthals. How about: "Neanderthals had more robust and stockier builds than modern humans,[33] though still maintained an upright posture.[149] They had wider and barrel-shaped rib cages; wider pelvises;[112] and proportionally shorter forearms and forelegs.[150][28]" Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on 45 Neanderthals long bones" Apostrophe?
stray s   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Eskimo" sentence is long and complicated, and I know the word makes some people twitch a little. Something to think on, perhaps.
  • "There are modern humans with noses as wide as those of Neanderthals and modern humans with similar nose lengths, but none with both Neanderthal nose width and nose length." Source? That's quite a claim!
I forgot that note was there. I tried finding a source for it but I got nothing, so removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "285 N (64 lbf) and 255 N (57 lbf)" Wikilinks for the units?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very long, complex sentence in para 2 of the "Brain" section.
Is it the sentence with all the dashes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - could I recommed splitting it? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What if I put parentheses instead of dashes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That could help. I'm just interested in making things easier for readers - especially for an article of this sort, that might include non-native speakers and bright kids! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit stumped by the third paragraph of the metabolism section
You're right, the first sentence was talking about archaic genes associated with nocturnality, but the other 2 sentences were just talking about resulting vitamin D deficiency and early-bird propaganda and were deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 13–19% before reaching adulthood" I don't follow
"and 13–19% injured before reaching adulthood"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Low population also led to low genetic diversity and probably inbreeding, which could have led to inbreeding depression. The 13 inhabitants of Sidrón Cave collectively exhibited 17 different birth defects, likely due to this." Isn't this all mentioned elsewhere?
inbreeding's important in a lot of topics   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern humans likely transmitted diseases to them, one likely candidate the stomach bacteria Helicobacter pylori." Clumsy writing
How would you rewrite it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Modern humans likely transmitted diseases to them. One possible candidate is the stomach bacteria [whatever]." Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but more likely the more conservative estimate given low population density" Tricky
  • "to other carnivores" What does carnivores mean in this sentence? Surely Neanderthals were omnivores, like modern humans?
"similar profiles to carnivores"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edible plant remains are recorded from several caves.[197] For example, Neanderthals from Sidrón Cave in Spain, based on dental tarter, likely had a meatless diet of mushrooms" Mushrooms aren't plants.
"Edible plant and mushroom remains"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dental tartar from Spy Cave indicates they had a" What does they mean in this sentence?
clarified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had a greater proportion of carnivore remains" What does this mean?
clarified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling with the second paragraph of the competition section; could this be revisited?
that was indeed a train wreck, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1975, a mostly flat piece of flint with a bone pushed through a hole on the midsection–dating to 32, 40, or 75 kya[215]–has been purported to resemble the upper half of a face, with the bone representing eyes–the Mask of la Roche-Cotard.[216][217] It is contested whether it represents a face, or if it even constitutes as art.[218]" This needs smoothing out.
Is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still issues. "In 1975, the so-called Mask of la Roche-Cotard, a mostly flat piece of flint with a bone pushed through a hole on the midsection—dated to 32, 40, or 75 kya[215]—has been purported", and "constitutes as art" should be something like "count as art" or "constitutes art". Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two 176 ka stalagmite ring structures, several metres wide, were reported in 2016 more than 300 m (980 ft) from the entrance within Bruniquel Cave, France. Being so far inside the cave, this shows a high degree of proficiency in underground environments in Neanderthals.[226]" The significance of this is not clear.
  • "In 2017, incision-decorated raven bones from the Zaskalnaya VI (Kolosovskaya) Neanderthal site, Crimea, Micoquian industry dated to 43–38 kya were reported. Given there are 17 of these objects at seven different sites in the area, and the notches on all of them are more-or-less equidistant to each other, they are very unlikely to have originated from simple butchering." Another tough read. Also, are claims about unlikelyness attributed to the authors who described them? Is that neutral given the apparent ongoing controversy? Or is the controversy not as big as is made out?
No, the second sentence was just the authors' justification that it was in fact art (that it was in fact "incision-decorated")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is there a little recentism in this section?
Neanderthal art is a rather recent development, the first claims from the 1970s but most claims of art surfacing just from this decade (or, I guess, last decade)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the apparent 150 ka stagnation in Neanderthal innovation" I don't follow. Do you mean "Despite the apparent stagnation in Neanderthal innovation 150 kya"?
No, the 150,000 year period where Mousterian stone tools didn't really change at all. That's one of the reasons why people used to think Neanderthal technology was very primitive and they weren't very adaptable or inventive (that viewpoint is covered in Research history), but that's no longer the consensus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similarly, the cave was likely only inhabited in the winter" Similar to what?
"probably naturally ventilated during the winter...similarly, the cave was likely only inhabited in the winter"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "similarly" is the right word. It's naturally ventilated in winter, and Ns probably only lived there then, but it's not clear that these are "similar" statements. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"likewise"?
  • The bark tar stuff is interesting, but maybe say that they used it and what it is before getting into debates about how to make it.
that does stand to reason, done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More complexity that could be ironed out in the language section. The whole section could perhaps do with smoothing out.
How's it looking?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I think there's more to be done before FAC, but it's not bad for GAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neurologically, they had an expanded Broca's area" They?
clarified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was asserted by" asserted is a little judgemental
Seems like the correct usage in this context   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "funerals" section is a bit listy.
I guess it's basically a list without bullet points   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again: that's probably OK at GAC, but it wouldn't go down well at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was once asserted that" Again, be careful with asserted
I mean, it does seem correct in this instance considering it's not really supported anymore by really anyone   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did he argue for it? If he argued for it, he didn't merely assert it. (And that's true even if his arguments are not discredited.) I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but I do encourage caution! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1–4% in modern Eurasians,[57] 3.4–7.9%" Are all these numbers for modern Europeans?
No, 1 study said 1–4% for all Eurasians, another study said 3.4–7.9% for all Eurasians, and another study said 1.8–2.4% in modern Europeans and 2.3–2.6% in modern East Asians   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear from the prose what the "3.4–7.9%" refers to. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the approximately 40 ka anatomically" ka old?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a later dispersal of human species" What does that mean
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palaeontologically, the earliest H. sapiens remains outside of Africa occurs at Misliya Cave 194–177 kya" Clumsy
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for now. Please double-check my edits. Great read so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I was beginning to doubt anyone would leave even 1 comment considering how big the article is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "advantage over hunting" Advantage in hunting, perhaps? Their advantage was over Neanderthals
fixed

Ok, I've not looked through the sources or images in any detail at all, but my gut instinct is that this shouldn't have too much trouble at GAC. At FAC, I think there may be some puzzles about prose smoothness, source formatting, recentism, and NPOV. Some readers may have some worries about how many uncertain claims there are, but I don't think there's any way around this and I think there may be room for more (the "Disease" section mentions the cannialistic pracctices of Neanderthals, but the impression I got was that the "Neanderthals were cannibals" claim was just a hypothesis). It may be worth reaching out to some of the biology (even paleontology) reguars at FAC - Casliber, FunkMonk, Cwmhiraeth, etc. - but I'd hope that this topic was sufficiently important and interesting to attract lots of reviewers if you asked around! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Still reading through, impressive, but one thing; there are way too many cites in the lead, and I presume it’s all cited again in the body. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule against citations in the lead. Especially because the article is so big, it's better to have the references in the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not, but are advised against mostly because they hamper readability, and also if you multi-cite a claim, it automatically creates doubt and the impression of underlying controversy in the reader's mind. I'm not confident enough of the sources, but advise caution given the underlying truth in Johnbod's law [1], which might be restated as the credibility of a claim is inversely proportional to the amount of cites used to back it up. Anyway, the article is on the right track. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how good it is for reading, but it's better for using as the average reader doesn't have to sift through the (very large in this case) body of the article looking for the source to something they read in the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have more comments, because I'm about to nominate for GAN?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not if your nominating. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's something I gotta fix, tell me what I gotta fix   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could just do a drive-by comment at GAN   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Neanderthal/archive2&oldid=935451466"