Jump to content

Talk:Australopithecus garhi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgarc070. Peer reviewers: Radroni21, Lfay002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

A lot of dates in the text are wrong, [1], for example the type specimen was first namend in 1999 (not 1997), and the skull has been found in 1997, not 1996. Haile-Selassi was the discoverer of the type-specimen, but he was not one of the authors of the publication ... --De.Gerbil 15:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this *must* have been a joke

[edit]

Someone wrote: "The remains are from the time when there are very few fossil records, between 2.0 and 3.0 million years ago. "

This is ridiculously wrong. You could fill a room with all of the hominid fossils from 3 to 2 million years ago. Several individuals of each of the following species have been found from this timeframe: Homo erectus Australopithecus africanus Paranthropus aethiopicus Homo habilis

and a few others. Additionally, I believe you should always say "3 to 2 million years ago". 2 to 3 sounds backwards, as the earlier date should come first. InterwebUsr (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fossils of homonins before 2mya do tend to be rare. Since generally humans lived on the plains, scavengers and predators tended to eat their remains meaning bones were separated and broken. This makes for bad fossilisation. Also human population numbers were quite small at this point, meaning there were fewer people to get fossilised. COmpared to other genuses we have very few australopithecus fossils. Whoever wrote that is quite right (before you ask, it wasn't me).Wise zoologist (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canines do not imply a carnivorous diet

[edit]

Did someone really write that Australopithecines in the Afar became extinct because they were surrounded by vegetation and had no meat? Large canines males of extant primates and some hominins are generally considered to signal sexual dimorphism. This implies much about their social organization and reproductive strategies, but does not mean they were relying on meat, or even consuming it at all. In fact, most of the debate about Australopithecine diet revolves around which plant resources they were consuming and where they were getting them, be it tough, C4 plants like sedges and grasses, or soft fruits in more closed forest environments. Hominins likely weren't relying on meat until the emergence of the genus Homo (definitely by the appearance of Homo erectus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantrog (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest stone tools / Behavior and Environment

[edit]

I removed a large chunk of text in this edit (added here and here). It could be used, but it must be cleanup up first (e.g. it should be Australopithecus garhi not Australopithecus Garhi; most references such as Denys et al., 1986; Pickford, 1990; Partridge et al. 1995, are not listed in the reference section or anywhere else). jonkerz ♠talk 07:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australopithecus garhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Australopithecus garhi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 03:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

1. Prose  On hold

2. Verifiability  On hold

3. Depth of Coverage  On hold

4. Neutral ✓ Pass

5. Stable ✓ Pass

6. Illustrations ✓ Pass

7. Miscellaneous  On hold

Comments

[edit]

1.

  • "and it is possible that though unclear if males" - I think this needs commas to set off the appositive. It just doesn't read well.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Owen Lovejoy link is incorrect, you linked to a guy from the 1800s
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. afarensis is a duplink
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8 "with 3 successive," - MOS:NUMERALS

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2.

  • "625–9" - This is a page range, is it standard for the leading digits of the latter number to be lopped off? I don't see that much (I also mostly edit history articles), and it's a touch confusing to look at.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 629–35." - Ditto as above
fixed. I see this format a lot but I don't like it so I usually change it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.

  • "The remains are dated to about 2.5 million years ago (mya)." - Is it known which method of dating was used?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4.

5.

6.

7.

  • The archaeologyInfo EL is dead for me.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the guy who made the Flickr image in the External links have any sort of qualification or subject-matter expertise? If not, I'm not sure if somebody's wild guess should be linked
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

Very odd that a GA doesn't even tell us where the garhi epithet comes from. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australopithecus_garhi&oldid=1228111420"