Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paranthropus robustus/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 30 December 2020 [1].

Paranthropus robustus edit

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the first australopithecine species every described. It failed the last time because after nearly a month it only received an image review.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per MOS:ACCIM The images in the article should have alt text added. Also, text should not refer to images as "left" or "right". Username6892 (Peer Review) 22:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
since when? This happens all the time and it's very useful to specify which is on which side. Also, is alt text a requirement anymore?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I (mis)interpreted the point about left and right to include all text (including captions). I've crossed it out accordingly. As for the alt text, it says all undecorative images should have alt text, so I think such text should be added before FA (I had a reviewer at GAN tell me to add alt text, though they noted lots of MOS issues). Username6892 (Peer Review) 02:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • Quitea difficult subject, which is probably why reviewers have been wary, but I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a good deal of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[2]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section names should make it clear what they are about. But I can't for the life of me figure out what "setting" means without looking at the text, but I should be able to.
changed to "Fossil-bearing deposits"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reconstruction of OH 5, the holotype specimen of P. boisei" This caption doesn't establish the relevance of the image to the text.
"OH 5 (reconstruction above) was made the holotype specimen of the 2nd Paranthropus species P. boisei."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hamadryas baboon troop at Dierenpark Emmen with several males" Likewise.
"P. robustus could have lived in multi-male groups like Hamadryas baboons (above troop at Dierenpark Emmen)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a distal right humerus (at the elbow joint), a proximal right ulna (also elbow)" Not sure those glosses are precise and understandable, you could also give regular directions rather than technical ones, for example "lower part of the right humerus (upper arm bone)" or similar.
"Broom recovered a distal right humerus (the lower part of the upper arm bone), a proximal right ulna (upper part of a lower arm bone)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baboon could be linked.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "out of which they and modern humans descended from" - "From which they and modern humans" would sound less clunky.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(quite controversially at the time)" Does the source say this?
added ref   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few weeks later, Broom recovered" From where?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This scheme was widely criticised for being too liberal in demarcating species" You cite one 1954 source, how do you get "widely criticised"? By who?
It's effectively a literature review. I can't just stack sources which all independently say it's too liberal and then myself say it's "widely criticized", that would be OR   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you can give prominent examples. What exactly does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At this point in time, humans and ancestors" Even at that time all these species couldn't have been considered human ancestors, so rather humans and their earlier relatives?
Polygenism allowed all human fossils to be classified as human ancestors, which was big in the 30s, but I'm not sure in the 40s. I know around this time most taxonomists were starting to classify all modern humans into the same species/subspecies H. s. sapiens, which I'm guessing would've made polygenism unattainable (but not completely because it was still entertained up until the 90s that Java Man evolved into Australian Aborigines), so I'm changing it to "humans and allies"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opinions of Jewish German anthropologist Franz Weidenreich" Why state his religion/ethnicity? All that is relevant here should be nationality.
Well the reason he was in China in the first place to study Chinese hominids was because he was a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is too circumstantial to be relevant here I'd say, but let's see what others think. FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a hard time seeing why the Gigantopithecus paragraph is relevant here, seems it would belong in the Paranthropus genus article?
They did this when Paranthropus was monotypic. It connects to Robinson's whole story on P. robustus being massive   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which they assigned to a new species aethiopicus" Add P. in front of the name so we are sure what genus you mean.
They didn't recognize Paranthropus as valid, so they actually assigned it to A. aethiopicus and ancestral to A. boisei. I wasn't sure what to do in this instance so I lopped off the genus name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should state that outright for context instead of kind of tap-dancing around it, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now the baboon and tooth photos kind of clash, one could be left aligned to precent this.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A size comparison image would be good.
I mean, size estimates are pretty speculative in and of themselves, and are based on very few specimens as it is. Also, in order to do a size comparison, you'd need a silhouette, and the body proportions of this species are quite unclear   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specimen fro Member 3" From?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the Fossil-bearing deposits section, it seems much of this would fit as a section under paleoecology? It is basically about what lived where and when, and alongside what, and it is a bit of a mouthful that early in the article where it is now.
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The animals remains of Kromdraai" Animal remains?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the possibly the earliest record" One the too many.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ear of the juvenile KB 6067" Ear bones? Ear would indicate pinnae.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first hominin specimen (G14018) was found by German palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba in 1979, and the other two specimens were recovered in 1997 by respectively South African palaeoanthropologist Andre Keyser and excavator L. Dihasu." Why all these details when you don't give it for the earlier finds mentioned in the section?
they're already given in Research history   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the annual American Association of Physical Anthropologist" why do we need this detail here? You can be sure many of the other bones were also first announced at various conferences too.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So, the discoverers assigned it to Paranthropus species indeterminate rather than P. robustus." Oddly worded. Therefore would probably be a better start, and "to Paranthropus species indeterminate" would be more comprehensible as "to an indeterminate species of aranthropus".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three example family trees" Examples of?
that works too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention museums in some captions, in others not.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state in some captions if a cast is shown, but there are instances where you don't.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is size the second section under anatomy? Seems odd that you start with skeletal elements (skull),, then you go to size, and then to the skeleton again. Would seem more logical to keep discussion of size separate from the skeleton, either before or after. I think it may even make most sense after you have described the skeleton completely, as the size estimate is based on those elements.
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "slight prognathism (the face was not completely flat)" Or more specifically, the jaws jutted forwards?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "well-defined sagittal crest on the midline" I'd add this was at the top of the skull.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gracile could be linked.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon species description, Broom estimated the fragmentary braincase of TM 1517 as 600 cc" Upon describing the species or such would be more understandable.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 1 side" I think numerals should only be used for actual numbers rather than what you are using it for here, one side.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quite often artificially inflated brain size in early hominins" Any word on his motivation?
basically so people would think of them as a human ancestor if the brain size was bigger   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should I add this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Female DNH 7 (left) vs cast of male SK 48 (right)" Why vs? Are they competing somehow? Why not just "and"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more specimens we have images of that could be shown, or has Commons been exhausted?
that's all of them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chimpanzee could probably be linked.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are much more robust than other australopithecines" Than in.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain transverse processes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bipedalism should be linked at first mentioned, now it is only in the torso section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some oddity with the tenses under anatomy, where it is often present tense when you would assume it to be past tense. For example "The wrist joint has the same manoeuverability as that of modern humans rather than the greater flexion achieved by non-human apes, but the head of radius (the elbow) seems to have been quite capable of maintaining stability when the forearm is flexed like non-human apes." For some reason you go form present to past tense within a sentence.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, two adjacent sentences, different tenses: "The premolars are shaped like molars. P. robustus had a tall face".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The distal phalanges seem to be essentially humanlike." In what way? A big statement like this needs some explanation.
did not specify, I would assume they're not curved like in apes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seems to have habitually been placed in highly flexed positions" How is this known?
based on how badly the joint was worn down you can tell how much it was used   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should be stated then. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added "based on the wearing patterns"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "same dimensions of that of" as that of?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The radius of P. robustus is the same as in Australopithecus species." And what does this mean? How do these differ from humans?
did not specify. The radius in Australopithecus is apelike, which would mean it's more curved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chimp is linked far below first mention. Also, it reads really weirdly with such an informal term among all hese scientific terms, as I've mentioend elsehwere.
Second opinion because I'm curious: what do people think of using chimp, rhino, hippo, etc. instead of chimpanzee, rhinoceros, hippopotamus?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally go for the more formal "chimpanzee". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think chimp is comparable to those others, which are in much wider use use than cimp. For example, do any of the soruces used use that term? If not, I'm not sure why we should either. Also, our chimpanzee GA refers to it as "chimpanzee" throughout as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P. robustus sites are oddly dominated by small adults, which could be explained as heightened predation or mortality of the larger males of a group." Why not just by their average size being small, or for example there being more females for each male as in some other apes, or similar?
those are all the same statement. By being dominated by small adults, average size would have been small, and if they lived in a harem society then larger males would've had a much higher rate of eviction and would've had higher mortality rates such as by predation (which is increased when you're alone than in a troop). These are discussed in the Social structure section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scaled the dimensions of a modern human and an ape" What ape? Pretty vague considering their range.
He did 2 linear regressions of body weight vs femoral cross-sectional area of 1) all modern great apes including humans, and 2) just humans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comprises the sabertoothed cats Dinofelis and Megantereon, and the hyena Lycyaenops silberbergi. " Why full binomial for the last one and not all other species?
added spp.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Subsequent researchers furthered this model that" The model? The idea that? Oddly worded now.
"Subsequent researchers reinforced this model studying the"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also found the microwearing on 20 P. boisei molar specimens were indistinguishable" Found that?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possible that the stone tools were reworked." Could be explained what this means.
"moved into the layer after the inhabitants had died"
  • In the paragrapgh about possible fire use, you don't state that it was maybe by this species outright. Do the sources make the direct conenction?
Brain doesn't make a definitive species attribution because though robustus is known from Member 3, Homo is assumed to have been present as well, though he makes it a big point that fire dates to before robustus went extinct   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The now-earliest claim of fire usage is 1.7 million years ago at Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa, made by South African archaeologist Peter Beaumont in 2011." But by this species?
No hominin fossils have been recovered from Wonderwerk, but we do have Acheulean artifacts so the authors specifically attributed the fire to H. ergaster. This is mainly in here because the part about Member 3 is no longer the earliest claimed evidence of fire   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the image captions can state what bones are shown. For example, it may not be visible to many readers that some of these are fragmentary skulls. So "Cast of SK 46" Would be "Cast of skull SK 46", for example.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P. robustus sites are oddly dominated by small adults, which could be explained as heightened predation or mortality of the larger males of a group." Isn't this better left for the Social structure section, where it is elaborated on anyway? Now it is both repetitive, and doesn't really fit into the otherwise descriptive anatomy section.
in Size changed to "Smaller adults thus seem to have been more common"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit odd that the Technology is the second section under Palaeobiology, given how vague the section is in attributing the discussed issues to this particular species. I think the sections following should be moved before it, because they are more directly relevant to this species.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much like savanna baboons" Link them? And if they are the same as the Hamadryas baboons mentioned in the caption, you should use the same term for both to avoid confusion. If they're not the same, you should use a photo of the former instead.
changed to "baboons which live in the savanna"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flash the typically engorged canines" How can a tooth be engorged?
fixed "enlarged"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is depository whereas the sides are resorptive" Explain these terms. You give soem examples afterwards, but they don't really explain what the terms themselves mean.
"is depository (so it grows) whereas the sides are resorptive (so they recede)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At early stages, the P. robustus jawbone is somewhat similar to that of modern humans, but the breadth grows in P. robustus, as to be expected from its incredible robustness in adulthood. By the time the first permanent molar erupts, the body of the mandible and the front jaw broaden, and the ramus of the mandible elongates, diverging from the modern human trajectory. Because the ramus is so tall, it is suggested that P. robustus experienced more anterior face rotation than modern humans and apes. Growth is most marked between the eruptions of the first and second permanent molars, most notably in terms of the distance from the back of the mouth to the front of the mouth, probably to make room for the massive postcanine teeth. Like humans, jaw robustness decreases with age, though it decreases slower in P. robustus." It seems odd all this is in present tense. The preceding and following text is past tense, too.
fixed
  • "gracile australopithecines" You should explain the distinction early in the article at first menrtion.
"The genus Paranthropus (otherwise known as "robust australopithecines", in contrast to the "gracile australopithecines")"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "same time as females, but continue growing for up to 5 or 6 years; and male mandrills complete dental development before females" I'm not sure this is a correct use of semicolon, should just be a comma, or full stop.
there'd be too many commas so it'd be difficult to identify which section is an interruptor; the semi-colon functions as a period but you're not finished with your sentence yet   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you reach the palaeobiology section, you are very inconsiostent in whether you name authors of studies or not. Should be consistent.
You mean I should replace things like "a 2006 study" with the names of the authors?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or remove all author credit after a certan section (like by the time you reach Palaeobiology), as long as it's consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some image captions you culd give more context to connect the images with the text. For example "SKX 11 tooth", how does this relate t the adjacent text? Is it a special tooth that says somehting about development?
no it's just a tooth. I thought it'd be nice to have a tooth picture since we're talking about teeth here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was reached approximately 11 years" At missing?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to maximise children born" To maximise the number of children born.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and "estimates on gestation periods based on this rate and birth weight are useless." why this unusual logn wquote here instead of just paraphrasing as with eveyrthing else in the article?
it communicates very effectively how much he disagreed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he reported neonate" Unfamiliar term to msot readers, link or rephrase.
changed to newborn   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and birth interval; and for humans all" again, I think this should be a comma rather than semicomma.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "holes in enamel coverage" Covring? What does the source say?
It defines PEH as "PEH is characterized by multiple circular depression defects across a tooth crown"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the individual would have had to have also presented either alveolar resportion" that doesn't read well.
changed to just "would have"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baboons in this region modern day" This reads oddly too.
"Modern day baboons in this region"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As an antipredator behaviour, baboons often associated themselves" Why past tense? Is it not true anymore?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australopithecine bones may have accumulated in caves due to large carnivore activity, dragging in carcasses" Odd sentence structure between the parts before and after the comma.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SK 54 skullcap" State its relevance to the adjacent text.
"SK 54 skullcap with two holes probably inflicted in a leopard attack"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GDA-2 from Gondolin Cave" State what it is.
it already says earlier "...and a robust australopithecine 2nd molar (GDA-2)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The extinction of P. robustus coincides with the Mid-Pleistocene Transition" Past tense wopuld be more fitting.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(though more likely 0.9 million years ago)" WHy more likely? The discussion of what may be the last known specimen is interesting.
The source says "Indeed, multiple lines of dating evidence point to a young age of Swartkrans Member 3, likely around 0.9 Ma, but possibly as young as 0.6 Ma". Basically they preferred to cite a study which used cosmogenic burial of quartz to date (one of many attempts to date Member 3), which got 1.05–0.87 mya with a point estimate of 0.96±0.09 mya. I should probably move that to the Fossil-bearing deposits section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of it could be moved there, yeah, but the mention of the last specimen fits well udner extinction. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Homo possibly was able to survive due to the great geographical" Its greater?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "somewhere other than the Cradle of Humankind (Signor–Lipps effect)" This last part will mean little to most readers, explain.
It's already explained, it's just an alternative to saying "consequently, P. robustus possibly went extinct much more recently somewhere other than the Cradle of Humankind"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, it is argued that Paranthropus is an invalid grouping" I think we dicussed this at a GAN, but this makes it seem like that's the mainstream view. Something like "it has been argued" would make it seem less certain.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and some of the largest molars with the thickest enamel of any known ape." As far as I can see, none of this is stated outside the intro?
because that only applies to P. boisei   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the continual prolonging of dry cycles and subsequent retreat of such habitat." Shouldn't it be "possibly due to" instead of "and" here?
changed to "characterised by"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good. Would be good to get a solution to the Gigantopithecus undue weight and the chimp issue, as these have also been commented on by others. And then there are two other unresolved issues above it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • As above, suggest adding alt text
My problem is that the alt text wouldn't be anymore descriptive than the caption (like they'd all read something like "a skull" or "a tooth")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true in most cases. For example, an alt text could describe the location of the Cradle of Humankind, or note what component is represented in the holotype. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cradle_of_Humankind_plan.jpg: what is the source for this map? Ditto File:Paranthropus_robustus_Africa.jpg
As I said in the last review, I would assume google maps. If you want, I can list the map here as a source, or upload the map from [3] which is CC-BY-4.0 (but highlights Rising Star Cave which P. robustus is not known from), or this map which is kinda pixelly. Just tell me which is most preferable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the second of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it alright that it's missing Swartkrans?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:DNH_7_Reconstruction.jpg: the review discussion for this image is weak.
Some reviews get more eyes than others, and this was definitely in the others category. I'm not sure what to do in this case, so I'll see what other paleontology people have to say about it, and I can always remove it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I would suggest removing by default, unless any weigh in in favour. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should signal more opinions needed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hominid restorations are very difficult and take almost forensic reconstruction skill to do, so yeah, the best would be to get a photo of a museum exhibit or restoration from a journal article. I think we have very few reviewers with such experience here that would be able to give qualified critique. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I took it down. The only forensic-level restorations of P. robustus I know of are on deviantart   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I don't know why but my brain always automatically puts down sa   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

Nearly four weeks in and no supports. I shall add it to Urgents, but this needs further reviews very soon if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks later and a wall of comments but with no declarations of support or opposition it feels more like a PR than a FAC. There still seems a way to go to achieve any consensus to promote so I'd like to put it to bed now and ask that further work take place away from FAC with discussion on the article talk page, that you engage these reviewers for a quick check once done, and then bring it back after the usual two-week wait. You can of course again ping the reviewers to comment at the next FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack edit

  • Can't promise I can finish it, but I will give it a go.
However much you can do is fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it is argued that Paranthropus is an invalid grouping and synonymous with Australopithecus – "argued by some"? Otherwise I would assume that this is consensus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "robust australopithecine" = Paranthropus? That should be clarified in the lead when the term comes up. Further down, there is also a "more robust australopithecine", so I guess this is yet another meaning?
Paranthropus are called the "robust australopithecines", whereas Australopithecus (if you exclude Paranthropus) and Kenyanthropus are called the "gracile australopithecines"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And can we make that clear in the lead? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Robust australopithecines–as opposed to gracile australopithecines–are characterised by..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brain volume of the specimen SK 1585 is estimated to have been 476 cc, and of DNH 155 about 450 cc. – Not very helpful for use in the lead, because difficult to compare. I mean, the average reader will learn nothing from this. This would be more useful in relation to body mass, e.g. as Encephalization quotient, and in comparison with relatives. Was it more or less intelligent?
added "for comparison, the brain volume of contemporary Homo varied from 500–900 cc"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. robustus seems to have consumed a high proportion of C4 savanna plants. In addition, P. robustus may have also consumed – suggest to replace the second "P. robustus" with "it".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more likely to be evicted indicated by higher male mortality – "as" missing?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • recovered a distal right humerus – should be "distal end of a right humerus"? Similar formulations in the following sentences. Alternatively, you could just go with "the lower part of the right upper arm bone" and avoid the technical terms completely, or at least replace "distal" with "lower end".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which he assigned to the specimen. "to the same"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broom considered all these species, which dated to the Pleistocene and were found in the same general vicinity (now called the "Cradle of Humankind"), – I would make a separate sentence of this side note, this sentence is otherwise difficult to read.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which was younger than the fossils from Kromdraai. They believed that the Swartkrans Paranthropus were reproductively isolated from Kromdraai Paranthropus and they eventually speciated – but did Broom know it was younger?
that's discussed in the Fossil-bearing deposits section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but is doesn't help with understanding this particular sentence when it is explained much later in the article. To be clear: "which was younger than the fossils from Kromdraai" – If Broom didn't know this, I think this part has to be removed or explained, otherwise it is confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He knew that the faunal remains from these 2 sites were different, and therefore that they were temporally spaced. He didn't know which was older and which was younger   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the 21st century, "P. crassidens" had more or less fallen out of use in favour of P. robustus. American palaeoanthropologist Frederick E. Grine is the primary proponent against synonymisation. – I would specify "synonymisation of the two species" for extra clarity.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also believed that they both had a massive build, – who is "both"?
Paranthropus and Gigantopithecus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that this does not become clear from the grammar and needs rewording in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (which he referred to as "H. africanus") and supposed cultural and hunting ability in the earliest human lineages – quite hard to follow. The reader needs to know that "H." is Homo, and that the mentioned "earliest human lineages" are part of "Homo". I wonder if people without substantial background can follow this.
All the reader needs to know is "earliest human lineages" excluded Paranthropus, and I've expanded it to "Homo africanus"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is not well-formulated, I think it is confusing, or at least ambiguous. He contrasted the massive build with cultural and hunting ability? This doesn't make sense to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"He also believed that they both had a massive build. In contrast, he reported a very small build for A. africanus (which he referred to as "Homo" africanus) and speculated it had some cultural and hunting abilities, being a member of the human lineage, which "paranthropines" lacked."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • though it is unclear if this classification is completely sound. – and this was the latest opinion? The source is quite old?
I mean the name "Telanthropus" was used following that source, but not so much as a hard classification but moreso to indicate the specimen that was being discussed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand; who doubted that this classification was not completely sound? If it was Tobias (1965), you would need to attribute that claim to that author directly I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, the – Avoid words like "now", "currently", and the like. This will be outdated in a few years. Better give the year.
If we find an even earlier one in South Africa, the article would have to be updated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. And wouldn't it be much more precise and helpful to just provide the exact year? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because if we're in the year 2025, and you read "as of 2020, this was the earliest specimen," this would imply the article is out of date and an even earlier specimen has since been found   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it implies that the article is outdated; this would mean that the writer knew it was outdated when they wrote it, which is unlikely. You could start the sentence with "In 2019". But I'm ok if you leave it as is, it does actually not make a big difference. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally feel that the "Research history" section tends to drift of into unnecessary detail that is not directly related to the topic. For example, the whole paragraph about Gigantopithecus may be more relevant for the Paranthropus genus article, since P. robustus is not even mentioned in that paragraph (but even there, much of the specifics about Gigantopithecus could be much more concise). Maybe you could read over the "Research history" section to see if you can get rid of some detail to make everything more concise and easier to follow, and to concentrate on the important points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paranthropus was monotypic until 1959, so I could reword things like "In 1939, Broom hypothesised that Paranthropus was closely related to" to "In 1939, Broom hypothesised that P. robustus was closely related to"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would always name the species when the genus is considered monotypic. Can't expect the reader to remember this. And considering the suggested shortening – These are only suggestions to solve the main issue I see: the "Research history" section is still very difficult to read and I think there must be some potential to improve it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Research history" is mainly a history of classification. I would have expected more on the discovery of the specimens themselves (they are seemingly discussed in Paleoecology). Would it work to give a stronger focus on the separate fossil finds of this species in the "research history" section? It is important information that the reader might want to know from the start …
Yeah, I asked for the "Fossil-bearing deposits" section to be moved to paleoecology since much about it is about that, but of course, some of the info about individual specimens could go under history. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure. I agree with FunkMonk that the "Fossil-bearing deposits" section is better placed where it is now. Maybe start the "Research history" section with a paragraph that, after describing the discovery of the very first find, also outlines the discoveries of P. robustus that followed. Also, I definitely would provide some background information here as well, i.e. the reader has to understand that those localities are caves found within a quite restricted area (how large?) called the Cradle of Humankind, and that P. robustus was not found outside of this little area. This does not become sufficiently clear imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's already in Palaeoecology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and my point was that important background information should be provided early in the article, and that history of discovery belongs in the history section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom of the Research history section already says all the sites P. robustus is known from, and that all these sites are in the Cradle of Humankind   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also would start that section with some background information about "Kromdraai". It would improve understanding I think.
What kind of background information?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See point above! And adding the word "cave" would already help. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added that it's a cave   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • now also includes – see comment above considering "now".
if P. boisei or aethiopicus are ever removed by overwhelming consensus from Paranthropus, that would be a significant development and the article would be updated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but such anatomy is strongly influenced by – "their" anatomy?
"jaw anatomy"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and could in all likelihood have evolved independently – I suggest to remove "in all likelihood".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments for which species is more closely related to which are based on how one draws the hominin family tree, – Really? The trees should be based on phylogenetics, and for themselves are objective. The included character states may be subjective.
if your components are subjective, how can your results be objective?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is correct. What I meant is that the method is objective. "Drawing", on the other hand, is something very subjective, and you need to have the final tree in mind before you start drawing. In phylogenetics, you collect the characters (which can be partly subjective at times), and give them to the computer to calculate the tree. The tree calculated by the computer is often not what you expected when collecting the data. Bottom line: "drawing the hominin family tree" is just misleading and certainly not how it works. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I change it to?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would delete this part of the sentence altogether, as I am not sure what it wants to tell us in the first place (does it say anything more than "arguments about relationship are based on reconstructions of relationships"?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skull had a well-defined sagittal crest on the midline of the skullcap and inflated cheek – Which skull? It does not apply to all skulls as stated below.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggesting different locomotory patterns – Would be good to state what differences have been suggested.
none specifically have been suggested, it's just if you have a different sense of balance you're locomotion should be in some undefined way different   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They did indeed, something about lack of endurance running abilities in P. if I remember correctly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the next sentence "The posterior semicircular canals of modern humans are thought to aid in stabilisation while running"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence does not tell us anything about Paranthropus though. The article states that the differences could indicate the lack of endurance running in Paranthropus (thus a difference to modern Homo), as well as a more terrestrial lifestyle than Australopithecus. These are quite interesting ideas I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and either represents L1–L4 or L2–L5 – I suggest to spell it out to improve comprehensibility. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still strongly suggest to start the article (maybe within "history of discovery") with an overview paragraph and background information: Introducing the cradle of human kind, its mayor caves, time span, saying that P. robustus is restricted to that region, the humans that have been found there (and mention which were contemporaneous to P. robustus); also mention East Africa as another hotspot of early human history, and, importantly, clarify that Homo appeared roughly at the same time than Paranthropus. And maybe more that I'm not aware of myself. Without such background, it is really difficult for the normal reader to fully understand, and appreciate, the article; all of this becomes very relevant later in the article. At the moment, you just expect that the reader knows all of this beforehand.
The significance of the Cradle of Humankind is already brought up with "At this point in time..." and we follow the history chronologically. East Africa didn't really become a hotspot until the 60s and 70s when we found P. boisei, H. habilis, and A. afarensis, so East Africa isn't brought up until the Research history section has moved onto that time interval. The discovery of contemporaneous taxa is brought up in chronological order as well. I did skip A. sediba and the whole debate on the species-level classification of South African early Homo (like "Homo gautengensis")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't summarize Constantino et al. 2018, although it contains significant information.
changed to "P. robustus likely also commonly cracked hard foods such as seeds or nuts, as it had a moderate tooth-chipping rate (about 12% in a sample of individuals, as opposed to little to none for P. boisei)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • specialist diet specifically adapted for – suggest to remove "specifically", since this is just redundant to "specialist".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • narrow band of foods – later you refer to the same thing as "hard foods". I would specify "hard foods" here as well to avoid confusion.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. robustus likely also consumed seeds based on tooth chipping patterns – I think it should be "chipping frequencies", and this is not precisely what the sources say: Chipping patterns may be indicative for hard foods but not specifically for seeds.
fixed (as above)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first probable bone tool was reported – Probable bone tool of what of australopithecines?
As in, the first piece of bone which was speculated to be a bone tool, and this speculation was likely correct/hasn't been convincingly refuted. Species attribution is discussed in "Bone tools are most abundant when P. robustus remains far outnumber Homo remains and stone tools, so they are often attributed to P. robustus"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • though it is possible that the stone tools were reworked. – I think you need to explain "reworked" in a gloss here.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The form of P. robustus incisors appears to be intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, which could possibly mean it did not have to regularly bite off mouthfuls of a large food item due to preparation with simple tools. – This doesn't make sense to me, does it mean that H. erectus did not use tools?
The source says "the mesiodistally narrow incisors of P. robustus, intermediate between Homo erectus and modern H. sapiens, also signaled a limited degree of food processing and paramastication using the anterior teeth" and then contrasts this with the wider incisors of Pliocene australopiths   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in "technology" is difficult to follow, and I needed to read it several times before understanding it. Especially, the succession of information is not optimal. Start with the basics, give a bit of background before going into the specifics in an organised way. First, the reader needs to know that 1) it is difficult to assign the tools to a particular species, 2) that both stone and bone tools are present and that the latter are commonly associated with P. robustus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the now-disproven "osteodontokeratic culture" – So these were not tools in the first place? The reader is a bit at a loss here, this needs explanation.
added "These bones are no longer considered to have been tools, and the existence of this culture is not supported."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph on fire use: How does all of this relate to P. robustus? The species is not mentioned a single time.
Brain and Sillent did not attribute the fire to a species because both H. ergaster and P. robustus were found in Member 3, so they left it open-ended whether or not P. robustus was responsible or not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They extended their interpretation – Who is "they"? Of course, you mean the authors, but you only spoke about a "study", and here it grammatically refers to the gorillas.
"Balolia et al...."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This contrasts with other primates which flash the typically engorged canines in agonistic display (the canines of Paranthropus are comparatively small), though it is also possible that male gorillas and orangutans require larger temporalis muscles (and thus larger crest) to achieve a wider gape to better display the canines – But you said the crest is correlated with reproductive success in gorillas? Again, I think the formulation is not clear enough.
"This contrasts with other primates which flash the typically enlarged canines in agonistic display (Paranthropus likely did not do this as the canines are comparatively small), though it is also possible that the crest is only so prominent in male gorillas and orangutans because they require larger temporalis muscles to achieve a wider gape to better display the canines."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General remark: This has still some way to go. Most parts read well, but there are a number of sections which need to be reworked for better flow and comprehensibility. In these cases, I suggest to start with the basics, and then guide the reader. Furthermore, at least one seemingly important paper is not incorporated, and I feel the need to do a little source review before I can support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific with the prose issues?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel edit

This is my first time ever reviewing at FAC, so I apologize in advance for any blunders I might make. I'm not sure if I'll have sufficient time to conduct an entire review. For the time being, here are some (largely flow-related) suggestions regarding the Paleoecology section:

  • "In addition, these two species resided alongside A. sediba" - Might be good to write out Australopithecus here, since the last generic name starting with A listed was Antidorcas
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Sterkfontein, only the specimens StW 566 and StW 569 are firmly assigned to the species, coming from the "Oldowan infill" dating to 2–1.7 million years ago in a section of Member 5." Might be good to clarify what "the species" is here.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—is exceptionally large for P. robustus, which has a recorded maximum of 290 mm2 (0.45 sq in), falling within the range of P. boisei 278–378 mm2 (0.431–0.586 sq in). So, the discoverers assigned it to an indeterminate species of Paranthropus rather than P. robustus." This feels a little choppy - perhaps something like "—is exceptionally large for P. robustus, which has a recorded maximum of 290 mm2 (0.45 sq in), but falling within the range of P. boisei 278–378 mm2 (0.431–0.586 sq in). Thus, the discoverers assigned it to an indeterminate species of Paranthropus rather than P. robustus."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australopithecine bones may have accumulated in caves due to large carnivore activity, dragging in carcasses, which was first explored in detail in 1983 by Brain." Perhaps "Australopithecine bones may have accumulated in caves due to large carnivores dragging in carcasses, which was first explored in detail in 1983 by Brain." might flow better?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these species predominantly ate large grazers, and the leopard," At a glance this looks like its saying that the hyenas at leopards, perhaps change the "and" to "while".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Homo possibly was able to survive due to the great geographical range." Does this refer to the range occupied by Homo or the wet/dry cycles? I'm guessing the former, but it might be good to clarify.
did not specify   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may add more in the future. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some thoughts on paleobiology: --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is a fallback food just less desirable food or a food source that an animal switches to when its preferred food is unavailable?
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the social structure subsection, I'm not sure if the first sentence really needs to be its own paragraph. Perhaps it could just be merged into the following one?
I think it's an important enough clarification to be a sentence-paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They concluded that these bones were, "the earliest direct evidence of fire use in the fossil record,"" Perhaps state the estimated date of these bones here, since it's given for the now-earliest claim?
Member 3 is poorly constrained, and at this point in time was dated to 1.5–1 mya. It is now generally dated to much younger intervals   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the distal humerus (at the elbow) joint" should this be "the distal humerus (at the elbow joint)"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike apes and gracile australopithecines, but like humans," Perhaps it would be better to use "other apes" in place of "apes"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is more similar to gorillas whose roots typically measure 7 mm (0.28 in) when emerging from the gums (a later stage of dental development) whereas other hominins typically are under 5–6 mm (0.20–0.24 in)." I'm trying to figure out how best to phrase this without being confusing - perhaps "whereas those of hominins typically are"? While I know that other hominins excludes Paranthropus robustus here, it kind of sounds like it's referring to gorillas instead.
"In contrast, those of other hominins reach 5–6 mm (0.20–0.24 in) after the tooth has emerged not only from the gums (a later stage of dental development). SK 62's growth trajectory is more similar to that of gorillas, whose roots typically measure 7 mm (0.28 in) when emerging from the gums."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good! I've posted some comments on the first half of the anatomy section below. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P. robustus has a tall face with slight prognathism (the jaw jutted out somewhat)." Maxillary or mandibular prognathism?
if you're comparing it to the proportions of modern humans, it would be both   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skulls of males had a well-defined [...]" - "had" should be replaced with "have" for consistency of tense.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which would have increased lever arm" I don't fully understand this statement - what is being increased? Length, massiveness? Or am I totally misunderstanding what "lever arm" means in this context?
So torque τ = r * F, where r is the lever arm vector (or in this case the length of the mandibular ramus which pivots around the jawhinge), and F is the applied force (in this case by the masseter and pterygoids). If you stretch the ramus, you can increase your torque and the force your jaws can exert   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon describing the species, Broom estimated the fragmentary braincase of TM 1517 as 600 cc," It would be good to clarify that this is volume, perhaps it could be changed to "Upon describing the species, Broom estimated the volume of the fragmentary braincase of TM 1517 at 600 cc,"
  • "SK 3981 preserves a 12 thoracic vertebra" Is this the convention when talking about hominid vertebrae? Usually I would write it as thoracic vertebra 12, but I've dealt more with sauropsids.
I don't know what the standard spelt out version is, I've only ever seen it as T12   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "a 12th thoracic vertebra"? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that was a typo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "pelvises" the plural of "pelvis" or is it "pelves" (or both)?
both work   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest of anatomy:

  • "The radius of P. robustus is the same as in Australopithecus species." - Perhaps "The radius of P. robustus is identical in form to those of Australopithecus species."? "same" is a bit vague.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arboreal activity in the trees" - Since the arboreal locomotion article defines arboreal locomotion as "the locomotion of animals in trees", the "in the trees" part feels extraneous.
it's to gloss arboreal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps parenthesize it to clarify that it's a definition? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The femur, like P. boisei and H. habilis," - perhaps change "like" to "as in" (although this may be too nitpicky)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(which he called "H. africanus")" Since Australopithecus africanus is still valid, wouldn't it be "H." africanus?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph states that P. robustus shows a greater degree of sexual dimorphism than humans, but H. ergaster/H. erectus has a greater difference in mass. Just to be sure, is this accurate?
it's still debated if H. ergaster/H. erectus had a high degree of sexual dimorphism or not (I'm not sure where the author of this study stands), but this is only 1 site. That'd be like putting Dwayne Johnson next to Scarlett Johansson and saying modern humans have high size-specific sexual dimorphism   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here's taxonomy:

  • "and 2 toe bones," - since "toe phalanx bone" is specified elsewhere, are these phalanges or metatarsals?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1950, Broom suggested separating early hominins into the subfamilies Australopithecinae (A. africanus and "P. transvaalensis"), "Paranthropinae" (P. robustus and "P. crassidens"), and "Archanthropinae" ("A. prometheus")." Since "A." and "P." could both refer to more than one genus here, it would be good to specify what they refer to.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1972, Robinson suggested including Gigantopithecus into "Paranthropinae"," - "including Gigantopithecus in "Paranthropinae""?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most immediate reactions favoured synonymising "T. capensis" with "P. crassidens" whose" - I think that there should be a comma after "P. crassidens" here, but I don't know whether it would be inside or outside the quotes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "another and much more robust australopithecine" -> "another, much more robust australopithecine"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A. aethiopicus" Perhaps write it as "A." aethiopicus for consistency?
I don't know what to do because A. aethiopicus is just as valid a combination as P. aethiopicus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's a common enough placement (which it seems to be), then it should be okay. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Proponents of paraphyly allocate these three species to the genus Australopithecus as A. boisei, A. aethiopicus, and A. robustus." - The cladogram cited to the same study still puts the first two in P. though - shouldn't they also be in A.?
I don't understand. If Paranthropus is valid, robustus can't be excluded since it's the type species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, I'm not sure what I was aiming for here - I somehow misread the P. robustus label on the paraphyly cladogram as A. robustus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably read through the lead tomorrow or perhaps even later today. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps put authorities after the synonyms in the taxobox?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robust australopithecines–as opposed to gracile australopithecines–are" Looking at WP:DASH, I think that these should be longer dashes if there are no spaces (although I'm not entirely sure).
changed to em dash   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As before, perhaps change "in the trees" to "(movement in the trees)"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be good to describe what a storage organ is.
it already says "underground storage organs (USOs), such as roots and tubers"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's undefined in the lead though. Perhaps "(such as roots and tubers)" could be added after it? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I have from this reading! This was quite an interesting read! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha edit

This looks well-done and interesting, thank you for contributing your work to Wikipedia!

Some notes from reading through the article:

  • "Paranthropus robustus is a species of robust australopithecine"—I feel like the first sentence should define the subject in a way that non-specialists understand, and "australopithecine" is not a commonly understood term. Would "human-like primate" be acceptable?
probably not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1948, at the nearby Swartkrans Cave, Broom and Robinson described "P. crassidens" based on a subadult jaw, SK 6, which was younger than the fossils from Kromdraai. They believed that the Swartkrans Paranthropus were reproductively isolated from Kromdraai Paranthropus and they eventually speciated." I checked these two sentences against the source and there are some problems:
    • There is nothing in Broom's note about reproductive isolation or speciation: he just says that crassidens is a new species. I don't know what species concept Broom used, but not all species concepts require reproductive isolation. (And a paleontologist who thinks they can infer reproductive isolation from the fossil record must be very brave.)
    • You mention Robinson, but I don't see his name anywhere in the note.
    • The note bears the date January 8, 1949, not 1948. I suppose the find was in 1948 though.
    • The claims that the jaw is subadult, that is bears the number SK 6, and that it is younger than the Kromdraai fossils aren't in Broom's note. I don't doubt that later research established those facts, but the citation should be to that research, not to Broom's note.
added correct ref   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jewish German anthropologist Franz Weidenreich"—why does it matter that the man was Jewish?
Weidenreich was only in China to study Chinese hominids because he was a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "note, they are not absolute" on the legend to the phylogenetic trees. I don't know what "absolute" means here and I've looked at a lot of phylogenetic trees. Does it refer to the time dimension?
as in, there are tons of other alternate trees you could choose from   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to have a section, preferably early on, detailing how much material is known for the species. Is it feasible to give a complete list of all known material? That would provide useful context for many later sections.
there are too many to list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(To be continued at the "Palaeobiology" section.) Ucucha (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest:

  • I'm having some issues understanding the discussion of mortality and sex in the "Social structure" section. You say that "males seem to have had a higher mortality rate than females", but in the long run, surely the mortality rate is 100% for both. Is the argument that because males were more likely to be caught by predators, and the fossils we find are usually animals caught by predators, and therefore we find more males?
@Ucucha: that's correct, males were more likely to die from something other than disease/old age. How would you reword?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha (talk) 02:35, 25 December 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/Paranthropus_robustus/archive2&oldid=997194586"