Jump to content

Talk:Denisovan/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 21:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll be reviewing your article over the next few days. starsandwhales (talk) 21:23, 24 April 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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
  • Would it be appropriate to use a taxobox for this article?
it's not a taxon so no   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe instead of saying the body part as a part of the the name for each fossil, it could be a separate column?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tattersall book looks interesting.
He only makes mention of Denisovans in 2 places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, would "similarities" make more sense than "close affinities" when talking about Neanderthals? Since it's unclear whether they ever cohabitated the cave.
No, affinities as in taxonomic affinity, as in they're more closely related to each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the modern humans section it would make it clearer by grouping the information about each region together. The topic sentence of that section works well as an introduction to the ideas, but the information that follows could be better organized.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to make the divergence times diagram larger so that the timeline can be read without opening the image?
You'd have to make it too big   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is all of the dating done by assuming that the genes mutate at the same rate as humans? How would the mutation rates used to calculate time compare to humans? Were all of the specimens' nDNA tested or were only a few of them tested?
different authors use different mutation rates. Reich extracted nDNA from Denisova 3.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was the time the two Denisovan populations split calculated?
I'm having some trouble finding their methods, I'll get back to you on that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those were my main questions. Everything is well written, the article looks good.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denisovan/GA1&oldid=953323611"