Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neanderthal/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2020 [1].

Neanderthal

[edit]
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a species of human that lived in Europe until 40,000 years ago. If this passes, it will be the first FA about a human species. I tried organizing it so that, if anyone ever got human to quality status, it would have a somewhat similar form. There has been a lot of research and debates and controversies about Neanderthals since their discovery over a century and a half ago, and as such, this article is quite large. Until recently, Neanderthals were thought to have been inferior to humans in several ways (if not every way) and ultimately doomed to go extinct, but this view has very rapidly changed over the last two decades. Now it seems to be consensus that Neanderthals and humans are equals on an intellectual and cultural (but spiritual is still in the wind) level   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Wow, three palaeontology articles at FAC simultaneously, not sure if it's a first, but certainly rare. I'm just marking my spot here for later, as I have a few reviews open already. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And all of them nominated within less than a week of each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unusual to see so many citations in the intro. It should be ok if all the info and citations there can also be found in the article body.
They are. The article (and likewise the lead) is very big so I wanted to keep refs in the lead so a reader doesn't have to parse through all the text and details if they're just trying to get at the refs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to lump the citations together as notes? As I have seen this done in some other articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you'd actually do that and still make it clear which refs support which statements   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How you would do it is that after every sentence where there were multiple refs for instance "go seafaring through the Mediterranean,[38][39] make use of medicinal plants[40][41][42]" would be changed to "go seafaring through the Mediterranean,[note1] make use of medicinal plants[note2]", with each note containing the respective references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would just increase clutter in the Note section without really changing much in the lead. I think refs in the lead are fine as they are   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the footnotes lack citations.
added refs to footnote f   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the two huge maps under Population could maybe be placed side by side so they don't take up so much space? A lot of unused white space on their sides.
It uses Template:Location map which doesn't allow side by side view. It defaults to collapsing the Asia map so taking up a lot of space shouldn't be a problem   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll continue the review soonish. Regarding the discussion of missing book sources below, while I don't think it in itself should stop promotion, I personally do find it good to use books here and there just to show a wide variety of sources have been consulted, and because they also give a good overview of the literature (the mammoth articles I nominated for FAC benefited from a good book). I think the inevitable FAC waiting time could be used to sprinkle some book sources here and there, or just one good one that can tie things together. As for using journal articles, as long as you say "author x stated y in year z", it should be clear to readers that what's presented are theories rather than facts. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you mention museums in image captions and sometimes you don't. Should be consistent.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neanderthals are named after the valley, the Neandertal, in which the first identified specimen was found" this reads bit ambiguously, as if it is the first known specimen, though later you state earlier remains were known. I think you could say the first recignised specimens instead of identified, would be clearer what is meant.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the order where etymology comes first is unfortunate, since it keeps you from giving a more chronological, logical sequence of events, with first found specimens first, then the type specimen, naming etc. I don't think etymology even needs to be separate, as the text there could simply be part of the historical narrative and make the information flow much easier for the reader. Now you jump around in time, and it's a bit hard to follow.
I think it would be confusing if you mix etymology with information about the bones themselves especially because Etymology and Research history are already quite big and detailed as far these sections go, and it'd be much harder for readers to find etymology if it's intermixed with Schaaffhausen and Virchow   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this[2] is apparently the first restoration of a Neanderthal, it should be more relevant in the history section than for example the Knight or Wells images.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should state the date of the cited study in the cladogram caption.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to be more comprehensive with the pop culture section, you could mention films like Quest for Fire or Walking With Cavemen. The section seems a bit thin, I'm sure there must be more in depth analysis of how Neanderthals have been culturally perceived. The Neanderthals in popular culture article also seems to just be a list, maybe anything useful there could be folded into here and merged. Much of the text in that article has nothing to do with pop culture either and would actually be useful in the history section here.
Yeah I wasn't sure exactly how much to include for pop culture and because there article's already approaching 300,000 bytes, I decided to keep it very short, and only mentioned the works the sources in Research history mentioned. The only thing I see pertaining to the history section is the Origin section of which only the rickety Cossack isn't mentioned here. As for the rest, I'm not too sure what to include here (The Croods? Far Cry: Primal?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some things   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48

[edit]

Very well-written and well researched article, easy to follow and very enjoyable despite containing many technical aspects. Thank you for working on this and nominating it! I do have some small comments:

  • Compared to modern humans, Neanderthals were "stockier". Is there a more accessible word than "stocky" that's still accurate? This is word is not common IMO, especially for non-native speaker.
Huskier? Heftier? Honestly, stocky is one of the least technical terms in this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not that it's technical, it's just unusual. I don't have a better suggestion so I guess we leave it for now. HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "robust" accurately captures what you are referring to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Taxonomy. Is it possible to discuss what properties or what arguments make it considered a distinct species from human? I get it that #Anatomy and other sections provide the properties, but why is it a species rather and not for example a race or a subspecies
clarified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lung capacity of Kebara 2 was estimated to have been 9.04 L (2.39 US gal): as contrast, would it be possible to provide the range for modern humans, or where this number stands with regard to that range?
Lung capacity is greatly variable not only how much activity you do but what kind you do. The average person and long distance runners have a lung capacity of 6 L, whereas swimmers I believe have 9 L, and Michael Phelps hit 12 L. I think we would imply incorrect ideas by giving any one of these measurements for comparison   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Eemian Western European Mousterian lithics: Link "lithics" (would have done so myself but lithic is a disambiguation page)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mousterian should be linked in first instance rather than later.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social structure: Can anything be said about the level of intraspecies violence? E.g. was violence used to enforce hierarchy or to get resources?
Last paragraph of Inter-group relations   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and utilise complex spatial organisation of their settlements: can we clarify what specifically these means? Did they build structures or rooms inside a cave, or simply organize existing structures for different purposes?
I mean, they did in fact build structures inside caves, and they also purposed different zones and structures for specific tasks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, suggest adding a sentence in the article like how you described it above. IMHO it will be easier to understand. HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no modern body louse species descends from Neanderthals": not sure what "descends" mean here, surely we don't expect lice to descend from humans?
It's like saying human pubic lice descends/derives from gorilla lice, or human immunodeficiency virus descends from simian immunodeficiency virus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest say "no modern body louse species descends from their Neanderthal counterparts"? HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Qafzeh humans were approximately coeval : describe "coeval" in parentheses, or link
I just switched it out with "lived at approximately the same time as"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to understand "The discovery of a first generation hybrid indicates interbreeding was very common between these species".. Can you explain the relation between these two facts? I thought interbreeding would necessarily cause first generation hybrid regardless of frequency
Things very rarely fossilize, so the fact that we found a 1st generation hybrid indicates there were a lot of 1st gens around to fossilize. It's the same reasoning why Shanidar 1 being diagnosed with DISH indicates a moderately high incident rate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Would it be approprate to add a note saying "given that organisms rarely fosilize" somewhere, for clarity? HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Given how few Denisovan bones are known..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, the #Extension section could use a short intro. Are the four subsections correspond to four chronological stages, four overlapping causes, four contrasting hypotheses, or…?
Yeah I thought that might be problematic. Originally there were only 3 subsections so it was clearer each was a competition hypothesis, but then I added the Transition section. Should the other 3 be sub-subsections under a Causes or Factors heading?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer something like that,with an intro sentence saying that there are 3 main causes hypothesized by scholars. HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • #In popular culture: The article talks about how the scientific community have improved their understanding of Neanderthal away from the caveman stereotype.. Is there a similar trend (even small ones) in popular culture?
Not really, I mean you watch TV, how often do you see an intelligent caveman? I know only 1 time in Doctor Who where the butler was a Neanderthal and was really intelligent and articulate and witty   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those were taken in Germany and Croatia which have freedom of panorama   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: does FOP apply to things inside a museum? HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It varies by country but so far as I'm aware the answer for Croatia and Germany will be no. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it's okay for works of art in Germany and Croatia (unless not public interiors also includes works of art inside public buildings).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel qualified to answer this so will defer to Nikkimaria. HaEr48 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per commons:COM:FOP Germany, "Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify for s 59(1)". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should I nominate them for speedy deletion on the commons then?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the images   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect nothing less   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered, this is a very interesting and informative article :) HaEr48 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've marked follow-up/unresolved points in blue above. HaEr48 (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (expanding on HaEr48's points above)

  • Some of the captions warrant citations
  • File:Ernst_Haeckel_-_Tree_of_Life.jpg needs a US PD tag
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Berlin, I don't know what tag to use, I thought it was fine to just use pd-old-100   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's sufficient for its status in its source country, but we also need to know its status in the US, which means for the current tag we need a demonstrated publication before 1925. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't know who made that because this is Haeckel's tree. It looks like a derivative   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that makes things a bit more complicated because for a derivative work we need tagging for both the original and the derivative. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded the original. I don't know how to prove when it was first published in the US, but recent reprints such as this say that it's pd in the US   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Le_Moustier.jpg: where was this first published?
The description on the source page reads "Photograph of an original color mural painted in oils (see below) by artist Charles R. Knight depicting a Neanderthal family during the Ice Age. This reproduction was once part of an exhibit on early man at New York’s American Museum of Natural History."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Weichsel-Würm-Glaciation.png: source link in the description is dead
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Neanderthal_child.png: what's the source of this reconstruction?
The artist himself, paleoartist Tom Björklund who specializes in reconstructing Neanderthals and Upper Paleolithic humans (as in, he's as credible as a published author)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Neanderthal_genetic_subgroups.png: what do the points represent?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mousterian_point.png is tagged as lacking description
added description "A Mousterian point"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was created and uploaded by archeologist José-Manuel Benito Álvarez. Here are his published works   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "40,000 years ago (40 kya [thousand years ago])" I don't think you need [thousand years ago]. The context makes clear that that is what kya means.
That's what I thought, but someone re-added it, and I don't really have a strong objection   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DNA studies have produced results ranging from 182 kya[23] to more than 800 kya." This is misleading. The ref for 182 kya gives a DNA date of 315-538 kya. 182 kya is "derived from analysis of neutral morphological characters" and it is not a result, but the most recent possible date in a range at 95% confidence. More than 800 kya is also not based on DNA, but dental evolution.
Whoops. I guess I was trying to streamline all the dates and then just accidentally lumped them all into DNA studies. I did the same thing with the cladogram which someone else corrected   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of your list of Neanderthal technologies is widely accepted, but I cannot find any sources which endorse the the claim "go seafaring through the Mediterranean". This article describes the claims as "just speculation for now".
In the body I do use words like "indicate" because we can't prove anything (in the same way we can't prove clothing or weaving), but this doesn't come across in the lead. What wording do you suggest?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neanderthals were capable of articulate speech, though it is unclear how complex their language would have been." This is not widely accepted. Neanderthals had a hyoid bone similar to modern humans, but any claim that they were mentally capable of articulate speech is very controversial, as the sources make clear.
Yeah it's the same thing as the last comment. In the body we go over all the debate and the supporters and dissenters, but the lead says it as very definitive. This one's an easy fix though. Also, I don't really see any sources positing it as highly controversial, and with the great quantity of publications discussing culture coming in within just the last decade, articulate speech and/or complex language, I see, is more often presented as something they obviously had   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They predominantly resided in caves, and moved between caves seasonally." How strong is the evidence for this? It is a commonplace that evidence of early humans is often found in caves because that is where it has the best chance of surviving for archaeologists to find it.
You're talking about the open-air site in Israel (which is discussed in Group dynamics) where the study made some indirect asides to the taphonomic bias you're describing (which is not discussed). I wasn't sure if this was really appropriate for the lead, because it would be like including, after stating the average height, the recorded height range and "though it is possible that some grew much taller". But if you insist, I can add "though it is possible this is due to taphonomic bias" or something similar, and then make mention of this hypothesis in the body   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's a good idea, I can add more text in the body about open-air sites   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but I have to oppose. The sourcing is mainly journal articles, but human evolution is a field where people are constantly publishing articles making controversial claims which may or may not be accepted. I think you have to rely predominantly on secondary sources which summarise the current state of knowledge. The Natural History Museum in London and the Smithsonian have good web sites, but you need to look at books for in depth analysis. On the genetics, David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here, 2018, is up to date and authoritative, and there is also Svante Paabo's Neanderthal Man, 2014. I do not know of any up to date summary of the fast moving field of Neanderthal archaeology. I have not read Clive Finlayson's The Smart Neanderthal, 2019, but reviews suggest it is making the case for Neanderthal intelligence rather than being a summary of the state of knowledge. Two good books on the subject are Papagianni and Morse's The Neanderthals Rediscovered, 2013, and Ian Tattersall's The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack, 2015. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust books, they have no academic oversight, do not let authors correct mistakes or account for new information ex post facto, sometimes make authors paranoid of the former concern and present everything as pure and utter speculation regardless of anything, or the exact opposite where the authors have to write a lot of page filler which they may or may not consider entirely relevant or entirely support. I also don't trust the Smithsonian because I have seen facts put there that are just plain wrong or extremely outdated. I can assure you, the 350+ references used in this article accurately portray scientific consensus; for those applicable, I try to include responses to journal articles, and for every claim I have tried to include a contemporary source which argues to the contrary where there is one. I understand that this is a very well-researched topic with lots of theories and whatnots, and I've spent the last 6 to 7 months making sure I have captured current academic thought   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Books vary in quality, but reviews by leading experts in the field will tell you how far they are to be relied on. WP:LOP says "While we cannot check the accuracy of cited sources, we can check whether they have been published by a reputable publication and whether independent sources have supported them on review." It is very difficult for the reader of a Wikipedia article to check the reliability of journal articles, which are often by researchers who are reporting their results and talking up their importance, or trying to make their names by proposing controversial new theories. Articles by reputable experts are fine for facts and views cited inline to the author, but your method of reading journal articles to arrive at your own synthesis is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are asking the reader to take on trust your analysis of the field, which is not what a Wikipedia editor should do. PS. You are probably right about the Smithsonian. I seem to remember that some of their stuff is outdated. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how books are any different than how you described journal articles, except that they're less accessible than journals. Just because you write a book doesn't mean you're any less fallible. Literature reviews (which are used here) would accomplish the same goal you say can only be achieved by citing books. Paabo's book is already cited in Classification (but that book is first and foremost an autobiography). Rediscovered is also cited in various places.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using journal articles primarily or even exclusively is standard practise for paleontology articles. Please note that books, when written by authorities of the field, do generally not restrict themselves to providing neutral reviews of recent research. On the contrary, books aim to the general public and are freer of scientific rigour: they frequently contain speculation and vague claims that wouldn't have been accepted in a peer-reviewed publication (note that I didn't read the books mentioned, but it would surprise my if they were different in this regard). They are also quite often biased in favour of the hypotheses published by the respective authority/their lab, and this is expected: they wouldn't be authoritative if they wouldn't express an opinion. Journal articles make controversial claims, but these are highly relevant as they reflect current science, and thus need to be covered in a Wikipedia article (taken for granted that they are marked as opinions of the respective authors). But more than that, journal articles are in large parts secondary sources. They provide the best summary of previous research on their specific topics that one can possibly find, and peer review assures that all relevant literature is adequately mentioned (reviewers tend to be quite strict in this regard). I have always preferred journal sources over book sources in my paleontology FAs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, however, that the article in places presents the results of single journal articles as fact, without taking the necessary distance, and too often seems to decide what is correct and what is not. I already expressed my worries on this issue during the GAN review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is crucial that readers of articles, not only editors, can check their reliability. Books and articles both vary greatly in quality and impartiality, but readers of a Wikipedia article can check the reliability of a book by looking at reviews. Checking the reliability of articles is almost impossible for non-expert readers. Many articles which pass peer review are putting forward controversial theories and/or making excessive claims for the significance of the authors' research. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how book reviews tell you anything because they are either a plot summary or critiques about literary techniques, and more often written by laymen who don't know how accurate the book really is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these controversial theories are what palaeontology mostly is about: this is our content. We only can say "x said this", "y said that". We do not, and are not supposed to, care about the quality of published science. I don't think we can, according to the Wikipedia policies, knowingly disregard published opinions while mention others just because they were published in a journal and not in a book; this would be a fatal bias. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is extraordinary. Of course we have to care about the quality of published research. Otherwise we might as well just spout the nonsense we find on the internet. I never have any problem finding book reviews by experts in the field who point out any errors or bias. And I am not saying that we should not use articles as well as books. They are often useful for uncontroversial facts, and for opinions attributed inline to the writers. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you want me to do exactly? Books authors' opinions and content are included here, like Pat Shipman, Trekking the shore, Robert Fink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about the truth, but about verifiability. What counts as a reliable source is defined in WP:reliable sources. We only worry about the neutral point of view. And how to achieve the neutral point of view is a question of topic size: For a broad topic such as Paleontology, of course we should rely on books predominantly. But the article of the recently discovered Perijá tapaculo from the rain forest is basically based on a single journal article (that one that proposes this new species), this is all there is. For a small topic we need to cover all opinions that have been published in reliable sources, we cannot select according to WP:NPOV. And if some of those opinions are obviously nonsense, we still have to cover them no matter what. Secondary sources become important at larger topics, when we begin to filter. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV does not mean that we have to cover nonsense, and we are aiming to find the best evidence to get as near as we can to the truth, without pretending to infallibility. I am sure that Dunkleosteus77 is trying to get as near as possible to the truth about the Neanderthals.
In reply to Dunkleosteus77, in my opinion, the use of Pat Shipman is fine. She is a respected palaeontologist and her book is published by Harvard UP. The book title makes clear that it is controversial, but you cite her by name when she is giving an opinion. Fink's book is self-published, and not a reliable source unless you have evidence that his views are accepted by experts. I think you also need to read the most up to date surveys of the field (listed above). Reich is the authority on the genetics and maybe Papagianni and Morse for a broad survey. P&M is a bit dated, but it is highly praised by leading authorities such as Clive Gamble and Paul Pettit, and I do not know of a more up to date broad survey. Of course, these are just my opinions, and you will no doubt want to get the views of other editors. Mike Christie what do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing the flute, basically everyone brings up Fink's book, so I kinda had to include it. I just added Reich's book. Rediscovered is used in 4 places right now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the ping: I think what sources you rely on depends on the specialization. For a dinosaur with little evidence and not much discussion, specialist papers will be all there is; for Neanderthals there are plenty of book-level discussions. I think Dudley's main point is that one relies on books by experts to separate out fringe theories and present consensus, and I agree that's the ideal. For Neanderthals, though, I'm not at all sure how easy it would be to identify which books are authoritative and which are outside the mainstream. I emailed an archaeologist I know to ask about how sources should be used in their opinion; they said that anyone writing an article like this should have spent enough time with all the sources to be able to identify which were the mainstream and which were the fringe theories. I agree with him as far as that goes, but for Wikipedia we have the extra problem that we can't use that expertise as a source. In other words, if Dunkleosteus77 has spent enough time to be truly familiar with the material, then they are able to select appropriate sources and give the topics in the article appropriate weight. How do reviewers validate that? I don't see how we can, if we have no knowledge of the field. This is an example of where FAC often wishes for subject matter experts to review the articles. My archaeologist friend also commented that books, in addition to often being at a lower level of sophistication, can be just as speculative as articles.

I'd suggest posting at WT:FAC to get more opinions on this. My friend said he might have time to read the article and give feedback, and if he does I'll pass it along; he's an academic archaeologist and I think his input would be very useful, though Neanderthals are not his speciality -- his work is on palaeo-Indians in the US, and on early hunter-gatherer groups in South Africa, if I recall correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Fink's views on the flute are discussed by experts, then of course it is correct to cite him. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Rickety Cossack   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes no attempt to select sources or separate out fringe opinions as far as I can see. Quite on the contrary, and as long as the topic is not broad enough to be adequately covered by secondary sources, ideally review articles, I don't see another way. Selecting sources (at least for this article) can only be subjective and inevitably introduces personal bias. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify (and repeat myself) I am not arguing that books are more reliable than articles, but that readers can check whether whether a book is a reliable source by looking at reviews by experts. This is generally difficult or impossible for non-experts with articles. A good survey in book form also gives a broad overview which no article can do. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you do feel that hypothesis proposed by journal articles should not be incorporated as long as they have not been reviewed by a reputable secondary source such as a book, if I understood correctly? Which would mean that articles cannot generally include the newest research? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against removing the newest research, like the direct evidence of string production from 2 weeks ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With any source, whether a book or an article, it is a matter of judgment. An article may provide an uncontroversial fact, or a source for one expert's view among other views. I prefer validation by books for the reasons I have given, but it can be by other articles by experts. I do not agree that we should include recent research such as evidence of string production. We need to wait to see whether the claim is endorsed by other experts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine reporting claims which may or may not stand up. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is, though, contrary of what we do at least in the WikiProject Paleontology, where we try to include the newest claims as soon as they are published, and we try to update all our FAs this way with priority. I think Mike was right with suggesting a general discussion seeking more opinions, because this is absolutely fundamental and we cannot do something without consensus; it also seems unfair to blame this particular nomination for it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing what constitutes a reliable source, the best ways to maintain NPOV/what constitutes WP:UNDUE, or if it's okay for different WikiProjects to have their own criteria for those?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are obviously important, but I am surprised that WikiProject Paleontology tries to include every new claim, as in discussions I have seen and taken part in it has been accepted that new claims should not be included until it becomes clear whether they are taken seriously by experts. Doug Weller can you advise what the policy is on this question? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: all Wikiprojects should adhere to the same interpretations of policy and guidelines. When an article on a discovery, etc is first published in a peer review journal it is a primary source, and we have to be very careful how we treat it. See WP:PRIMARY. If you read down to WP:SECONDARY, that says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." In addition, see WP:NOTNEWS. I'm always hesitant about using anything that hasn't been scrutinised by other experts in the field, too often we do it and later find that we were too hasty. If the work on the Cerutti Mastodon site had been added to Mastadon before it was criticise, we would have done our readers a disservice. If it isn't controversial, a brief mention using only material based on the summary/conclusion/discussion section at the end might be ok. If it seems in anyway controversial, I'd avoid it. And of course the media as a source is a nono. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if it's an outlandish claim (like the fringe listed below) it's not gonna be included, and if an official report hasn't been published (like Neanderthal child eaten by giant bird) it's not gonna be in here. But it is standard practice to report new discoveries by actual scientists in paleo articles, without which, they would be terribly incomplete and dated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That goes against Wikipedia guidance. As Doug pointed out, a claim of a new discovery is not the same as a claim which has got support from experts. WikiProject Paleontology cannot set its own rules. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are completely in line with all cited policies. Also bear in mind that journal articles are peer-reviewed, which means that at least two independent experts already had their say on it. Also, to repeat myself, we never present hypotheses as fact, we say "author x suggested in 2019 that"; so we simply inform that this hypothesis exists, and there can't be anything wrong with that. What you are asking from us does not even work even if we wanted, since the requested evaluation does not regularly happen (this often requires restudy of the fossil/locality in question). And no, I don't even think it is specific to our WikiProject, you see it in all areas of science at least if you go to the specialised articles (and I reviewed a lot of them over the years). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[comment moved]

I mean I try to separate fringe when I identify it. The ones I remember (because they were kinda entertaining): one person said that humans lost hair like 70 kya or something and every other Homo was as hairy as chimps, one on how Neanderthals fit into the female cosmetic coalitions hypothesis and another for aquatic ape hypothesis, and the book this is from. Most everything else is either supported, refuted, or at the least briefly noted either directly or indirectly by many of the other sources (like growth rate based on dental evidence, basically everything in Art, ponchos, the controversy regarding the Châtelperronian, etc). Of course, this isn't true for everything in the article not because they're fringe but because they're just simply hardly discussed by anyone else (like pre-Neanderthal range or Moldova I). The least popular opinions in this article are Andrey Vyshedskiy, detractors of the interbreeding model, and maybe scaffolds because I don't remember anyone else at any point in time talking about drying meat and it reminds me of Clan of the Cave Bear. I can delete these. Does the Cults section count as fringe? It's clear these ideas are no longer supported, but they got some notable attention before being completely debased   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in the books you wanted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will take another look in a few days. I now have Clive Finalyson's The Intelligent Neanderthal, and I would like to read this before reviewing. It is not necessarily a book you need to cite, but I would like to see what he has to say. Have you considered adding adding a bibliography? A list of sources in alphabetical order of lead authors is very helpful to readers who want to see what sources have been used in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's in here, he talks about his previous research with bird jewelry   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cite page numbers in the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the ebook which doesn't have page numbers. The ref is used for very broad statements like "Neanderthals are suggested to have used various bird parts as artistic mediums" which the entire book discusses (except chapter 13, and even then, he still mentions birds), so I don't know what to do in this instance. He makes references to the conclusions of other journal articles or his past work (which are already cited here), but I don't want to clutter the entire thing with the same repeating ref. If you want, I can add info on Finlayson's hypotheses on Neanderthal bird hunting strategies, but the article's already massive (maybe save that for the child article?) and I'm not sure whether that would be put under Art or Food   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The chapters are quite short so it should be OK to cite the chapter. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also the comment by Fowler&Fowler at the end of FAC talk for a way of finding page numbers. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that effectively just be the same as giving "pp. 1–240"? What do you do if the entire book supports the statement?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know as I have not yet read the book, but from memory authors usually deal with it by finding a passage which sums up the idea and then citing the whole book and adding "especially page ..." This allows readers to check the source even if they do not want - or have time - to read the whole book. BTW you cite the book five times. Presumably most are for specific statements. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have cancelled my oppose and will review again in a few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary further comments
  • The standard lead for an FA article is an unreferenced summary of the referenced main text in up to four paragraphs. You have five referenced paragraphs. Why is this? Are you including material that needs referencing because it is not in the main text?
I wanted to put references in the lead for people who want a lighter read because the article is massive. There is no rule against having refs in the lead, and I'm opposed to removing them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked whether you have covered the idea that Neanderthals had large eyes as an aid to hunting in poor light, and I found that you have covered it three times. This suggests that there may be repetition in the article.
It's discussed in detail once, and it's briefly mentioned the other 2 times so people aren't left wondering why are the eyes so big because the article is so massive and they may not read the Metabolism section. This needs to happen sometimes in this case otherwise the reader may miss important background information. It's the reason why Trinkaus' mortality rate estimate is brought up twice, or why caves are also paired with their country on every mention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the suggestion that Neanderthals used feathers as decoration, but not the claim in Finlayson's book (pp. 129-32) and elsewhere that they preferred black feathers.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a video of the Levallois technique. I do not know whether it is just me, but I find it difficult to concentrate on text when there is a video next to it and generally close any web page when I see it. I would prefer it to be deleted but if kept it should have the usual cross in the top right corner to close it.
How do I do that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have five citations of Finlayson's book with no page numbers and in many other cases you have wide page ranges, even though you are citing sources where specific page numbers are available. This makes it unnecessarily difficult for readers to check references.
I don't have page numbers, I have an ebook. It might be easier just to take out all the other mentions of that book because it's almost always paired with an earlier study by Finlayson   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I commented above, I think such a long article should have a bibliography listing lead authors in alphabetical order. Also, in view of the extensive sources used I do not think you need a further reading section, and the external links section should be trimmed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what a lead author is, so I just listed all the repeating refs with an ISBN   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead author is the first (or only) author listed. E.g. in " Bischoff, J. L.; Shamp, D. D.; Aramburu, A.; et al. (2003). "The Sima de los Huesos hominids date to beyond U/Th equilibrium (>350kyr) and perhaps to 400–500kyr: new radiometric dates" the lead author is Bischoff, J. L. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • I'd like to open this by stating that I'm not a subject-matter expert here. I've reviewed the discussion above, the linked discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#What_constitutes_a_reliable_source?, and the relevant policy. On that basis, my interpretation is that the article should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources, supplemented when appropriate with primary sources, and in my opinion we're probably leaning too heavily on the primary literature here (particularly in the lead, which I'd expect to be a broader summary, and particularly in a few cases where citations are to news items rather than peer-reviewed sections of journals). However, as pointed out at WT:FAC it's difficult for a non-expert to determine appropriate weighting of sources. I'll wish the FAC coordinators lots of luck in evaluating that!
  • "Skeleton of a Neanderthal child discovered in Roc de Marsal near Les Eyzies, France" - source?
that's what the description was on the Commons. File:Neanderthal Child Roc de Marsal.JPG and archeologist Don Hitchcock's website show the same skeleton and call it the Roc de Marsal child, so I'm inclined to believe the Commons description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per this RfC, pop-culture materials should include sources demonstrating not only that the usage exists, but that it is significant to the subject. Primary sources such as The Croods are not appropriate for that purpose.
Yeah, the pop culture section originally stopped at the books but Funkmonk suggested I add more. Should I delete the visual media?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion was mainly for the historical stuff in the origin section of Neanderthals in popular culture, not the random appearances. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no better sourcing for it then yes it should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent when you include locations for publications
which one has the location?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FN4, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fixed ref 4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
Which one doesn't use the template?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lexico, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lexico may be getting replaced (per below) if @Espoo: comes back. I vaguely remember 1 English source supporting the statement so I'll try to find it again. Also Espoo, I believe you added the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary in the lead, could you include a page number? If s/he doesn't respond by the end of the week, I'll be replacing them with the online dictionaries   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lexico appears to be targeted to language learners - suggest replacing
deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn16 appears to be a publisher version, which per SHERPA this journal does not generally allow archiving. Ditto FN38, check others
I don't understand. They're both links to researchgate. Is that a problem?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not authorized republications that's a potential linkvio issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I quite frequently put links to researchgate, I wasn't aware they allowed unauthorized publications. Who were the authors for those 2 you mentioned? The refs keep rearranging as I continue editing and I've lost track of the numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN47 has a harv error
fixed
  • As above, some of the page ranges are quite large for verifiability purposes
Is this is regard to only book sources or are there some journal sources you're looking at?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 99 and 100 don't seem to include the detailed linguistic history reflected in the text
Yeah, Espoo came in in January and added those details, and I tried to delete it, and then s/he added it back, and then we tried discussing and got nowhere. I can delete it again (if it will not be added again). Espoo, did you use any other sources you didn't list?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
deleted unsupported text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN117 is missing publisher
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How are you deciding which publications include publisher and which do not? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones don't include the publisher?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn123: formatting doesn't match other similar sources
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think this is now FN120. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duarte 1999 has a publisher listed. It'd be easier if you put the lead author and year published instead of the footnote number   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some sources have pages inline using {{rp}} while others have the pages in the footnote?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northernmost site is Bontnewydd, Wales" - the source supports that there is a site at this place, but don't see that it says it's the northernmost site?
That's because there're multiple sites at 53°N, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Masters Thesis and was verified and signed off by Dr. Herman Pontzer and Dr. Tom Amorosi who are evolutionary anthropologists   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Evidence of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that. Considering it was published in 2018 and in that time no one else has really talked about Neanderthal calorie intake, it cannot be said to have had significant scholarly influence, so I guess I'll be deleting their results. It's basically echoing the conclusions of a 2012 study and adding numbers, so I've rewritten that paragraph now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN325 is missing publication title. Same with FN331
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gargett 1999, Journal of Human Evolution   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now FN336. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wunn 2001, Cadernos Lab. Xeolóxico de Lax   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This has been open a month and a half and we seem quite a way from consensus to promote so I'm going to archive this and ask that further take place outside the FAC process, after which we could try another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Neanderthal/archive1&oldid=959955475"