Talk:Paranthropus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 22:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well claim this, since I've read most of the article. The lead seems nice, article reads well, and it's comprehensive so the details I'm bringing up are mostly minor. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about getting this to FA. Do you know what areas I should expand upon? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that for FA a paragraph-form and more expansive history could be a good step, including more information about places and times of discoveries, reasons for separation, etc. As well, it may be suggested that the article is over-imaged, and the skull beside Extinction is the first I would recommend removing. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 07:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The last paragraph of the lead repetitively uses "namely"~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about anthropology but with extinct animals I've written the list-form of the History section would preferrably be paragraph-form, removing the bold headers and combining some small sections on invalid species would suffice.

It was originally that but it was kinda cluttered and info was scattered about everywhere with this many species. This way is much more organized. The sections go in chronological order so it's really the same, just headings make it clearer and easier to read User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then "P. aethiopicus" should probably have the quotations removed since its suggested as valid, and "P. cong-something" should not be italic since its not a scientific name at all. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The fact that a 2018 study suggests different relations from the 2019 study shows that the results of the 2019 study should be discussed a bit.~~

There's only one 2019 study in the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My typo, meant between the 2019 and 2018 studiesIJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I'm sure I could find a 2017 or 2016 study that gives a different cladogram. Human taxonomy's, if anything, a mess, and I'm sure someone in 2020 will come up with some different cladogram User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then at least something contrasting the 2018 results should be mentioned before you throw in a 2019 cladogram that doesn't share the previous paragraph. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 07:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I think I might be misreading the 2018 study. He says A. deyiremeda shows divergent evolution from A. afarensis, so does that mean the author thinks A. afarensis was the ancestor species, or is he just comparing A. deyiremeda to a more ancient Australopithecus to justify the classification P. deyiremeda? I'm thinking now it's actually the latter because he doesn't actually directly state ancestor species even in the cladograms User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would agree the latter is what is intended. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The OH5 skull does look nice, but should probably be removed from Habitat so the Ome River image can be moved up~~

I switched the 2 images around User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images could be rearranged to fit better with their content. Eg. the full body mount could go beside the paragraph discussing "body was petit", OH5 could be shown next to the paragraph describing it as Nutcracker man IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some more left-right adjusting could take place to space the images out more. The skull at Extinction should probably be cropped, and it might look better to entirely remove an image from that place since it won't fit on the left wihtout bumping the header and its not relevant to the text. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it up a little User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably put height and weight first within description, and cut down the first paragraph of that section to exclude the odd mention of a single east african individual with an uncertain weight, and condense the discussion about the percentages by weight.

If I put it first then "In comparison to the large, robust head..." might seem out of place, don't really know how to condense the sentence on percentages by weight, deleted the East African mention User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This bit of the sentence "and the remaining 43% less than 54 kg (119 lb)" should probably be reworded so its clearer that 43% were larger than the previous size bracket but smaller than 54kg. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and the remaining 43% bigger than the former but less than 54 kg (119 lb)" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's really it for the article I think. The only other things I would recommend would be to reduce the overall image count (every skull but one is pictured at least twice from only slightly different angles) and condensing the history into paragraphs instead of a semi-list (would make it less organized but would flow better as a read). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]