Talk:Australopithecus afarensis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 00:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily take this one on. Just give me a few days to get through it. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm all done with my review. Apologies for working in bits and pieces; real life is preventing me from getting large uninterrupted chunks of time on Wikipedia. I see you've already fixed all the prose issues, so all that's left are a few potential image issues we should clarify before we move on. The article was a pleasure to read. I hope all is well on your end during these crazy times. Ajpolino (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Lead - Pardon my ignorance in this field, but it's not clear to me why stone tool use would indicate meat was also a dietary component. Is this obvious to the educated reader, or could the phrasing be tweaked to make that more clear?

Stone tools are generally interpreted as having been butchering implements User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy>Classification - The abbreviation "Ma" starts appearing suddenly. I assume it's some variation on the "million years ago" abbreviation you define in the lead?

fixed

Anatomy>Skull - A definition of "cc" would be nice; a wikilink to Cubic centimetre would do.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy>Skull - Taken together, the duration of brain growth was much shorter than modern humans and However, brain growth was prolonged are a bit confusing. Can you clarify? Are they referring to two different things? Or is A. afarensis brain growth prolonged relative to apes but much shorter than modern humans?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor things (not essential for this review; take 'em or leave 'em):

Lead - ...but major fossil finds would not be discovered until... reads a bit weird. Can one discover a fossil find? Perhaps it could be reworded to something like "with major fossil finds in the 1970s"

changed to "but major fossil finds would not take place until the 1970s" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - In the 1972–1977 expedition in Hadar, Ethiopia, the International Afar Research Expedition led... it's uncomfortable to read "expedition" twice so closely together. I can't think of a smooth way to cram the years, location, expedition name, and leaders all into one sentence. Maybe it would live better as two sentences?

"From 1972–1977, the International Afar Research Expedition—led by anthropologists Maurice Taieb, Donald Johanson, and Yves Coppens—unearthed several hundreds of hominin specimens in Hadar, Ethiopia..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - recovered notably fossil trackways - is "notable" intended?

no User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what's meant now. I'd suggest cutting the word "notably" since it's momentarily confusing, and we can safely assume that each discovery you mention in this article is "notable" (again, not necessary for the review; up to you). Ajpolino (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - C₃ forest plants links to C4 carbon fixation. Is there a better wikilink?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy>Research history - (though the individuals were not necessarily related) can be removed. It doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article. Though interestingly AL 333 doesn't mention it, so perhaps you could add it there instead?

The common name "First Family" is misleading so it's good to declare that here User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy>Skull - Just an opinion: I'd advocate swapping the order of the two paragraphs in this subsection. The second paragraph paints a nice picture of A. afarensis skull anatomy for the reader. The first paragraph jumps into the details of cranial volume and would be a nice follow-up to the second.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy>Size - Similarly, I think the first two paragraphs of this subsection could be swapped. Paragraph 2 is about size generally, based on several specimens. Paragraphs 1 and 3 are estimates of the individuals that left specific fossils.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section):

b (citations to reliable sources):

c (OR):

d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Everything appears to be referenced to high-quality sources. Sadly I have no background knowledge of this field. I spot checked a few references, and I'm assuming the rest checks out as well.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Lots of great images! I'm no copyright expert, but a few possible issues to consider:
- File:Lucy-reconstruction.jpg is a derivative work of a sculpture installed in a public place. In some countries (e.g. Austria where the statue depicted in File:NHM - Australopithecus afarensis Modell 1.jpg is displayed) freedom of panorama protects the photographer from having to worry about the copyright status of the statue. Sadly, the US is not one of those countries. So my default leaning is that we can't host the image unless we get a release from the copyright holder of the statue. Do you know anything else about the statue depicted in the image? A quick Google search didn't turn up anything. Perhaps there's some reason that Smithsonian statues are not covered by copyright that I'm unaware of? I'm happy to reach out to someone more knowedgable on image copyright. Additionally, we can try reaching out to the Smithsonian. They may be willing to release a higher quality image under a compatible license.

There is no FoP in the US, and this image along with everything under Commons:Category:John Gurche is applicable for deletion. I have a lot of deletion requests regarding hominins as it is, so my plan was to wait until the dust settled on that before reaching out to Mr. Gurche, keeping the images online until further notice. You may reach out to the Smithsonian or Gurche if you wish User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- File:Test-pit_L8_at_Laetoli_Site_S.jpg is uploaded from an eLife paper under CC-BY-SA 4.0. At a glance it looks like eLife's default license is the less restrictive CC-BY 4.0. Am I missing something? Or was it just a typo at upload? If the latter, could you correct the license at Commons?

I always mix up those 2 licenses User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- File:Museum footprints.jpg may also have a derivate work issue with the mural above the footprint cast. It looks like Tanzania may not have freedom of panorama. So we may not be able to host a photograph of the 2D work of art. Again, if you don't have other info about the mural, we can consult someone for a more educated opinion.

I'll have to add this one onto Commons:Deletion requests/Hominin photos violating FoP User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Then I'll mark this review as a pass. File:Lucy-reconstruction.jpg is still a problem for now, but I'll take your word that you'll resolve it. Also I'll let you do the reaching out to Gurche. My guess is you're more likely to have luck convincing him than I am. Thanks again for an interesting read! All the best. Ajpolino (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

Pass/Fail: