Jump to content

Talk:The Neanderthals Rediscovered

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 10:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the authors of The Neanderthals Rediscovered learned they were accepted to write it on the same day they took their twin sons home from hospital? Source: Nocella, Michael (24 September 2013). "Neanderthals Rediscovered By Armonk Couple". Armonk Daily Voice. Retrieved 17 October 2023.; Papagianni, Dimitria; Morse, Michael A (2013). "Preface". The Neanderthals Rediscovered: How Modern Science is Rewriting Their Story. New York, New York: Thames & Hudson. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-500-05177-1.

Moved to mainspace by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 12:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Neanderthals Rediscovered; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. [reply]

  • Comment: ALT0, "they were accepted to write it" is a bit clunky, "hired to writed it", "learned their offer to write it was accepted", "learned they would be the writers" ... -Bogger (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terminology is a little tricky here, on account of the vagaries of the nonfiction publishing world. "Hired to write it" would be a work-for-hire, which is a very different thing, and "learned they would be the writers" at least gestures in a similar direction -- something for which the premise was decided by a third party. I'm not sure "learned their offer to write it was accepted" is less clunky. Vaticidalprophet 00:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New enough (and quick GA too), long enough, well written and well sourced, no copyvio concern, QPQ present. AGF on synopsis. Interesting hook is really all primary sourced (quotation from news story) but still reliably sourced, and again AGF on the book source. Added slightly variation of ALT0a, just a more direct rephrasing from the article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

This is about as close to an instant pass as any article I can remember, as it's properly constructed, illustrated, and cited, and very nicely written too. For the sake of decency I'll mention a couple of very minor points.

  • "Background and publication" seems to cover two, or perhaps three, very different topics: what Neanderthals were; who the authors are; and the publication history of the book. Since these events are separated by some 40,000 years, it seems a bit odd to lump 'em together. I suppose the first two could be called "Context", but that section really shouldn't contain book details.
  • 77 illustrations: are all those photographs, or are there maps and diagrams too? I'd certainly hope there were maps, and if I was reading up about suitable books, I'd want to select one that gave me a proper geographic overview as well as the history.
  • "if Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans cohabited in Europe": perhaps the verb "cohabited" isn't ideal, as it could mean they slept together rather than coexisted in the same region. Actually there is evidence of interbreeding too, but that's another story.
  • "they took their twin sons home from the hospital they were born in". Maybe the two instances of "they" need a little work.
  • "covers the contemporary understanding of Neanderthals": actually on re-reading this I don't know quite what "contemporary" means here: that the book is out-of-date already, as is slightly implied by the Reception section? or that it is nicely up-to-date, having taken in the advances made between 2007 and 2013? Perhaps this could be expanded and clarified slightly.
  • I always stumble over "predated" (... predation) and perhaps other readers do too. After all, both groups ate meat, and cannibalism is mentioned ...
  • "Both authors had published books previously; Papagianni was an editor of the 2008 archaeological compilation Time and Change: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on the Long-Term in Hunter-Gatherer Societies[10] and Morse the author of How the Celts Came to Britain, published in 2005 by Tempus Publishing, which was selected as one of The Times Literary Supplement's Books of the Year.[11][12]" ... is rather a long sentence. Maybe split it?
  • Maybe wikilink Native Americans (there is quite a choice of articles to link here, actually).
  • The images are both suitably licensed.

Summary

[edit]

This is a fine article and I hope to award it a GA shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the prompt review and commentary! I believe these are all addressed. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.