Talk:Homo luzonensis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homo luzonensis are an extinct – This is a species name, and these are always singular. I also suggest to add the word "species" to this first sentence; otherwise the definition is not clear, and it remains diffuse what this article is actually talking about. "An extinct pygmy archaic human" is not enough – readers can rightly assume this is would be about a single individual of modern human. Or something like Homo faber, which is also not a species. By writing "is a species of", we would also be consistent with most other Wikipedia articles on species, including the article Homo sapiens.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010, French anthropologist Florent Détroit and Filipino archaeologist Armand Mijares and colleagues identified them as belonging to modern humans – the lead states they were identified as such in 2007.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The teeth of H. luzonensis are small and mesiodistally (the length from the left to the right side of the tooth) shortened. – this explanation of "mesiodistally" would only be true for the incisors, not for the molars!

"between the two ends of the tooth" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the size of the teeth? It is good to start with general remarks, but important facts need to be included also.

Basically the describers emphasized two main points: the remains had both basal and derived characteristics, and were quite small. Now that I'm thinking about it, I really shouldn't have said they had short stature as a science fact because it's also technically possibly they were regular sized but just had strangely small teeth and phalanges User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The molars are smaller than those of the pygmy H. floresiensis – H. floresiensis was already introduced, why introducing it again as "the pygmy"? This can only irritate the reader.

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are dorso-palmarly (vertically) – "vertically" is too easy, as this depends on the orientation of the hand; therefore it is completely ambiguous and doesn't help. Instead "from the palm to the back of the hand" as the direct translation?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australopithecus limbs are generally interpreted as being adaptations for bipedalism and suspensory behavior, – this is a bit short. Suspensory behavior could be explained (e.g., swinging in trees), and the respective evidence (curved finger bones) also, especially since this feature was already mentioned.

Added "potentially suspensory behavior in the trees". The only thing the source says about locomotion is "The morphologies of the hands and feet of Australopithecus, which are generally described as an intermediate between the morphologies of great apes and modern humans, are typically interpreted either as indicating adaptations to various degrees of bipedalism and climbing and/or suspension36 or as reflecting the retention of plesiomorphic features in obligatory bipeds35,37. However, the partial and fragmentary nature of the H. luzonensis postcranial elements presently limits further interpretation of its locomotor and manipulative abilities" I don't know what else I would add beyond what I've already put down User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body size estimation is missing (there are numbers in the Nature News source).

I don't see any numbers (I don't really understand how they'd get height or weight approximations considering all we have are some teeth and phalanges) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I meant this news article. I agree that the assumption is vague, but at least it gives some idea. Readers of this article may not have any idea at all what size to expect and may assume something much smaller, so at least a vague assumption like "within the size range of small Homo sapiens" is definitely helpful. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the fossils are stored at the National Museum of the Philippines.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this might be self-explanatory, but I would still offer a etymology of the genus and second part of the species name.

added species etymology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short article, but if a few things (see above) are added, it seems to cover all important points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]