 | Lawrence H. Keeley was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 13, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that archaeologist Lawrence H. Keeley refined the methods of microscopic use-wear analysis to learn about prehistoric stone tools? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that archaeologist Lawrence H. Keeley refined the methods of microscopic use-wear analysis to learn about prehistoric stone tools? Source: "In the 1970s, Lawrence H. Keeley refined the 'high power' technique for microwear analysis that had been pioneered by S. A. Semenov. Lawrence Keeley demonstrated to the Western world that the 'Semenov high power method' of identifying the functions of ancient stone tools is a very effective analytical technique." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19302275
- ALT1: ... that Lawrence H. Keeley, an American archaeologist, worked with Nicholas Toth to research Paleolithic tools from Koobi Fora, Kenya? Source: "Keeley and Toth's study of microwear traces on stone tools supported the results of independent studies of cut-marks on bones from basal Paleolithic sites that suggested that Plio-Pleistocene hominins were hunters or scavengers who were able to kill small game or drive off predators and collect nearly complete carcasses. In addition, the Koobi Fora artifacts provide the only direct evidence for woodworking and plant cutting by hominins during the Pliocene-Pleistocene." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19302275
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Franco-Greek defense agreement
Created by Nmarshall25 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Good to go. Main hook preferred. ALT1 is cited, but not to the source supplied in the nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)One of two primary methods? edit
The article currently reads:
Microwear analysis is one of two primary methods (the other being use-wear analysis) for identifying the functions of artifact tools [...] Microwear differs from use-wear because of the scale at which the analysis happens; microwear analysis is the use of microscopy to evaluate and understand these polishes.
But I can't find support for the claim that microwear and use-wear are different methods in the cited sources that I can access (I can't access the SciAm one). As I understand it, "microwear" is simply use-wear analysis that uses a high-powered microscope. Shea[1] and many others[2] use the two terms interchangeably.
Similarly saying "one of two primary methods" is not supported by the sources I can access and the same Shea article notes that the main way archaeologists approach stone tool function is to infer it from form using ethnographic analogies or controlled experiments. Nowadays we can add to that residue analysis, ergonomic analysis, quantitative morphometrics, etc. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Lawrence H. Keeley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments edit
- Do we know what the H stood for in his name?
- Consider uploading a Fair Use image of him.
- Add full name to the first paragraph. I know it is repetitive, but otherwise it is unsourced.
- the infobox says he got his MA from Oregon, but this is not in the article.
- Add alumni of University of Oregon to the categories
- And University of Chicago faculty
- His thesis is in the infobox but not the article. Add it to the article.
- Do we know who his PhD supervisor was?
- Link microwear analysis, lithics on first use in the body
- Link hominid, stone tool
- Decapitalise the "P" in "Paleolithic archaeology", A in "Microwear Analysis"
- "Lawrence Keeley" -> "Keeley" after first mention
- "Toth later ... but later" Can we avoid one use of "later", perhaps with a different word, to avoid this awkward repetition, where the same word has two contexts in the one sentence?
- "saw other ways to challenge Keeley's "peculiar view" of anthropology" Like, for example?
- fn 14: Do we have a doi or ISSN?
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A solid article. Meets GA standard although I have some issues minor listed above.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- No images
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
