Talk:Paranthropus aethiopicus

Paranthropus aethiopicus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 14, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Carissmav. Peer reviewers: Mariahzamora, Grang001, Dhern041.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WT17ksmf.jpg

Image:WT17ksmf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Citations

This article is in serious need of additional citations. The facts presented are appropriately neutral and positive additions to the article, but they need to have better citations. I've added a few citation needed tags in a few areas. Geo.grail (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new article contribution carissmav/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carissmav (talk • contribs) 04:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who first published the name Paranthropus aethiopicus?

Of course Arambourg and Coppens are the formal authors of the species name but someone must have been the first to actually use the combinatio nova Paranthropus aethiopicus. Who was it?--MWAK (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paranthropus aethiopicus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These things are complicated but fun. Will review soon, at first glance, there's a bunch of duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fixed

Any cladograms?

copied from Paranthropus robustus User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Reconstruction of KNM WT 17000" Isn't it just a cast or replica? Reconstruction would imply that missing parts have been added.

Missing parts were added (you can see some parts are shiny and the reconstructed parts aren't). This image emphasizes the implied areas User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Side view of KNM WT 17000" Also, this is surely just a cast, not the actual specimen as implied by the caption?

"Reconstruction of KNM WT 17000 (side view)" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Peninj Mandible assigned to P. boisei" Likewise?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a shame the only skull isn't shown from the front too, but perhaps this[1] photo could be added as a double image with the one under description? Similar to the one in Lythronax under paleobiology.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit counter to most other such articles that you give classification before taxonomic history. Would probably be nice if it was consistent across articles and that it started with taxonomy.

it seemed easier to understand if Paranthropus and related confusion was introduced first before going into research history in this instance User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"P. aethiopicus is only confidently identified from the skull KNM WT 17000 and a few jaws and isolated teeth" This would also logically be in the history section rather than classification, another argument to switching the structure around.

that's actually just repetition with the last paragraph of Research history User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A partial jawbone, KNM-WT 16005, was also discovered. They clearly belonged to a robust australopithecine" To the same or different individuals?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and recommended that Paraustralopithecus be invalid" Or more specifically a synonym, but of what?

Well in that instance they considered Paranthropus to be a synonym of Australopithecus, so they would have considered Paraustralopithecus a synonym of Australopithecus User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The discovery of these specimens discredited earlier hypotheses that P. robustus was the ancestor of the much more robust P. boisei" Why?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ferguson's classification is almost universally ignored" Why?

Ferguson has a long history of making up new species names for single specimens with little justification. I remember Walker remarked in his book something like "He's always doing stuff like this" when talking about "P. walkeri" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"including a juvenile specimen, L338y-6.[10] In 2002, a 2.7–2.5 Ma maxilla, EP 1500" Why only give a date for the latter discovery?

year when the site was shown to produce P. aethiopicus remains User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The synonyms in the taxobox could also get authorities listed.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could make it clearer in the caption why you are showing the P. boisei mandible. State it was similar or something like that.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"postcanine megadontia" Which is what?

"exhibiting postcanine megadontia with relatively small incisors and canines (based on the tooth roots) and large cheek teeth" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" from 2.7–2.3 million years ago." Both here and underpaleoecology you should state the geological times it lived during.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"However, it is argued that Paranthropus is an invalid grouping" You state this as if it's a fact, but in the article body you indicate it is udner debate.- So the intro should have less secure wording and state only some researchers argue this (if that's the case, otherwise the title should be moved).

That's why it starts with "it is argued that" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not the same, "it is argued" implies that this is the main hypothesis, when the article body makes clear this is not necessarily the case. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it is debated" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" Whatever the case" Very informal wording for an encyclopaedia.

Seems formal to me User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to get much more into the nitty gritty of who exactly argues for what classification, when and why. It is a very short article now, and since most that has been written about it is probably taxonomic stuff, the article should reflect this and give much weight to it, where it seems kind of glossed over now.

There's too many researchers who discuss these 3 species, it'd be too many names and be a really pointless list since it's really the same back and forth argument User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need some key players and revisions mentioned then, I don't think the current hand waviness of that section is justifiable when the article is so short. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The debate's been going on long before P. aethiopicus was even discovered, and it mainly revolves around the definition of the word "genus". So it'd just be "Dr. Smith said that he doesn't accept Paranthropus. But, Dr. Johnson does recognize Paranthropus. But, Dr. Gregorio does not recognize it. But, Dr. Stephano does recognize it. But, Dr. Zhivago does not recognize it. But..." forever and ever, and it's pointless because new arguments aren't brought up, it's just an unsolvable back-and-forth like. It's like the argument for either trying to divvy up Homo erectus or just have one really long-running species (and the reasons for either are quite arbitrary and boil down to the author's personal preference) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though they may seem obvious, you could give the meanings of the original genus name and the specific name.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I still see two major issues that I don't think can be brushed off so easily. That the article is structured very differently from other similar articles in having classification first, while readers would expect to read about the discovery first, and the complete lack of date and authors in the classification section. I'm not sure I can pass this if these two things are not dealt with, they are kind of deal breakers when it comes to structure and context. You don't have to write classification as a back and forth between every single paper ever written, just give the proponents of each scheme and when their key studies were published. Alternatively, we can ask for a second opinion.

Should I just copy/paste some things from Paranthropus robustus? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it covers the same ground, Id say yeah. If it works there, it should work here, no? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is just "British geologist Bernard Wood and American palaeoanthropologist William Kimbel are major proponent of monophyly" good? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but who are proponents of the opposite? FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

included Walker User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So it seems there are more people for than against? The reader wouldn't have known unless you spelled it out, so it is definitely helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily the case, those are just 3 players Wood happen to name while really quickly discussing the debate User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, could be expanded in the future. Anyway, will promote now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who first published the name Paranthropus aethiopicus?

Of course Arambourg and Coppens are the formal authors of the species name but someone must have been the first to actually use the combinatio nova Paranthropus aethiopicus. Who was it?--MWAK (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, might this have been placed here on the GA page rather than the archived article talk page by mistake? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed :o). Though such information perhaps should not be absent in a Good Article.--MWAK (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but this section is likely to be "obscured" by being inside another talk page (especially since the review is finished). We could just move it out into the regular talk page? FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course.--MWAK (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and pinging Dunkleosteus77. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closest thing I could find is Evolutionary History of the "Robust" Australopithecines Grine 1988 saying "the generic names of the species afarensis, aethiopicus, robustus, and boisei have been omitted because of uncertainty as to whether it is Australopithecus or Paranthropus" hidden in the preface (which I can't access), but the book uses Australopithecus over Paranthropus. No one talks about the first use of the combination "Paranthropus aethiopicus", just that it's not universally used and the matter is debated, so even I found an earlier one, I can't confidently say it's the first User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]