Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solo Man/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2021 [1].

Solo Man edit

Nominator(s): User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last known population of Homo erectus, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only other great ape FA is orangutan. There aren't any recent comprehensive books focusing just on Solo Man (there are a lot which briefly mention it) but the primary description of the anatomy is a lengthy monograph from 1951 (I've omitted the detailed discussions on individual bones for brevity), and there are a few literature reviews which I've relied upon especially in Research history. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

File:Solo Man reconstruction.png, File:Ngandong excavation.png, and the other images from this 1951 publication. How do you know copyright was not renewed?

The US copyright renewal database doesn't show this publication (or any publications by Weidenreich) renewed. The Commons links this website with the description "United States Copyright Office. Online database for all copyrights registered or renewed in 1978 or after. For works with copyrights from 1950 or after, the renewal will appear here." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it's more likely for Anthropological Papers of the AMNH to renew copyright for the contents of their journal? (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean they clearly renewed a lot of their publications [2], including other works from 1951 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look through all 201 pages of results or otherwise confirm that this issue of the Anthropological Papers of the AMNH was never copyright renewed? (t · c) buidhe 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all 201, yes User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biface Extension.png What is the source of the information displayed on the map?

I can add one, would you prefer [3] or the doctorate thesis used on File:Carte hachereaux.jpg? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either of these would appear to be a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 02:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJE edit

Going through WP:WIAFA point-by-point:

1a: Is there no better way to present the various dating efforts than several sentences that read like "this year, then that year"? Otherwise nothing jumps out to me.

I'm open to ideas User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably use a bulleted list, myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1b: That seems to be the case.
1c: Can't really speak of this as ancient hominins aren't something I am familiar with. Sources seem reliable, although I wonder if that also applies to that by Teuku Jacob who has an ... interesting article. I see we mainly rely on modern sources, which seems reasonable if the discoverers all believed into questionable anthropological theories.

He really fumbled with floresiensis but he was a pretty established anthropologist I would say User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1d: The article spends a rather large amount of discussion on the discredited racial theories; also that hybridization view of Webb is a little odd if this is Homo erectus rather than Homo sapiens. Also, I wonder if the cannibalism aspect is getting a bit undue weight.

It was basically because if the hybridization thing was to be the explanation for the robustness of the Aborigine cranium, then why weren't the skulls of Southeast Asians equally robust? So Webb said it's because Solo Man also got to Australia somehow (I think it's at least implied by boat but I don't remember, and I guess also implied other populations were exterminated?) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what about the cannibalism? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannibalism section also covers pathology (even then it's pretty abridged) so it's really 2 sections in 1 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help to retitle the section to "pathology" then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It leans harder to cannibalism, because if it was straight pathology it would be like "Skull I has a 5x2 mm lesion on the left parietal bone" (and would consequently be a lot longer) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1e: That fits.
1f: The "drop random sentences into Google" test yields nothing untoward.
2a: I can't help but note that the extinction reasons are only discussed in the lead.

It was supposed to be "This caused the succession of the Ngandong Fauna by the Punung Fauna" but that's pretty vague now that I'm looking at it, so I added "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the tropical takeover" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2b: Seems OK save for the cannibalism aspect above.
2c: Seems to fit.
3: All images are well-placed and licenced. ALT text seems to fit.
4: Seems to fit.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support here, in the sense that, since I am not an expert on prose or the subject matter, my support here should not be held any legitimate concern about either prose or subject matter raised from here forward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

I did a close reading of the article and found it well-written and understandable. My only concern is that the Paleohabitat section presents the Ndangdong Fauna, Kedung Brubus Fauna, and Punung Fauna as if they are formal concepts terms, but without any explanation or link. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I try to explain the relevant parts, like the Kedung Brubus Fauna is roughly 800 to 700 thousand years old and features large mammals, the Punung Fauna is consistent with tropical rainforest and namely includes humans, orangutans, and gibbons, and the Ngandong Fauna are listed and indicate an open woodland. The Kedung Brubus, Punung, and Ngandong sites don't have articles to link to User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

General comment: Using first names rather than initials is a lot more helpful when trying to figure out who someone is. "J. Allen," for example, isn't exactly a rare name.

My problem is I want to remain consistent with providing first name or not and a lot of times only the first initial is given, so I decided to leave it at initial for everyone User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is up to you, although the way I do it is to use full names whenever possible, and use initials only when a) I simply can't find the first name(s) or b) the author clearly was known by initials, and can be identified by such (e.g., T. D. Kendrick). There is still consistency with this approach, even if it is less evident at first blush. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like consistency to me User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: I'd recommend using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter for works with multiple authors. But up to you.

You mean instead of |display-authors=etal? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the point below, I would dispense with using et al.; the ampersand could then be used instead. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#1: Citing to the entirely of a 40-page article for specific information is pushing the boundaries of the identifying parts of a source guideline, which states that "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited."

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this fixed? The full 40-page article is still being cited, without any indication of which pages substantiate which claims. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put the page number each time it's cited, right next to the footnote User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences using the source display as "They dismissed his findings as a malformed non-human ape.[1]" and "... favouring the hoax Piltdown Man from Britain.[1]". There are no page numbers listed. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#4, 8, 26: Journal of Human Evolution can take a link.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant inconsistency in when "et al." is invoked. It's either after four authors (#6), three authors (#7, 9, 10, 13), two authors (#14, 19), or one author (#23).

I wasn't aware that needed to be consistent User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the featured article criteria is literally named "consistent citations". It's in bold, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend to not leave any authors out at all, and simply provide the names of everybody. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this has never been an issue before (and after all, why would display-author exist if it shouldn't be used?), but done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#6, 22, 23: Nature can take a link.

done

Nope. Only the first was linked. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#12, 17, 18: American Journal of Physical Anthropology can take a link.

done

Again, only the first was linked. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#21: Publisher location missing.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernameunique, have your concerns been satisfactorily addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, not entirely. I've left some points above for Dunkleosteus77. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77, there are still some comments above that have not been responded to. Additionally, it looks like a number of other sources suffer from the same problem that #1 did, i.e., entire long works are cited without identifying which part of the works are being cited. The most pressing examples are sources 3, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, and 30. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Fix ping: Dunkleosteus77. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done with all except number 5 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been fully done for either #3 or #5. In addition, comments above have still not been responded to. Dunkleosteus77, please read the source review carefully, then let me know when all the outstanding comments have been addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I put the page number each time it's cited, right next to the footnote. So it reads "...but was too preoccupied with the Sangiran site to continue research at Ngandong.^[3]:23–26" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

Comments will follow soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and a prominent line of bone – what does this mean? Would "ridge" be a better word?

I couldn't figure out a better gloss for torus User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think "keel" comes closest, at least, this is how the sagittal torus was translated (see Sagittal keel). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keel is not a widely intelligible descriptor in this case User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ridge of bone" would also do. But I think that "line of bone" is just not comprehensible; why would this qualify as a widely intelligible descriptor? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most people know what a line is but not many people know what a keel is (myself included) unless they're familiar with boats User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 11:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikt:line, a "line" is one-dimensional. The structure you are describing is three-dimensional. I still don't think it is the word. If you don't like "ridge" or "keel", then sticking with "torus" would be preferable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ring? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 12:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But "ring" implies something circular. In Solo man, it appears to be more straight; a bit sinuous but not circular. Another possibility would be "bulge". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or "thickened rim". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean torus is a ring shape is it not? I thought it was called a torus because it wraps around the skull, in a circular arc User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 12:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinuous in posterior view, and slightly convex in ventral view, [4]. I would not call this a "ring" because it seems to be only gently curved, but if you still want to stick with the literal translation of the term, maybe "half-ring" would be less confusing? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur does not link to Bos gaurus but to another species? Do you have a source that applies "gaur" to that species?

changed (it's related to the gaur and banteng) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You now changed to "cattle" and "cow", but the article cattle states these are domesticated animals. Is this really the word? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's like calling everything in Sus pigs instead of boars. These aren't scientific terms, they're flexible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But then, it is imprecise and potentially misleading. I think we have to stick with the dictionary definitions of the terms we use. Wiktionary defines wikt:cattle as "domesticated animals", and nothing else. So your sentence implies that Solo man did use domesticated animals, which is just a mistake. We could wait and see what others think if you are still not convinced. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cow redirects to the same page as cattle User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The skulls sustained wounds, but it is unclear if these injuries resulted from an assault, cannibalism, the volcanic eruption, or the fossilisation process. – I think that this wording does not work. If it is due to fossilisation, it is not an injury per definition.

damage? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

maps included Tertiary deposits and among these was a bed dating to the Pleistocene – But Pleistocene is not Tertiary, right?

The boundary was at the midpoint of the Pleistocene at this time, and they were trying to distinguish Tertiary and Quaternary beds. Clarified User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The maps included Tertiary deposits and among these was a bed dating to the Pleistocene discovered by Dutch geologist Carel ter Haar in 1931 – I can't quite follow; was the site discovered as a result of the mapping project?

clarified User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Taxonomy" contains a lot of stuff that is not taxonomy. It contains a subsection "Research history", implying that it is the research history of the taxonomy. Maybe you could split the "Taxonomy" section into three major sections: "Research history", "Age and taphonomy", and "Classification".

Is it not already? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean, everything is under the major heading "Taxonomy" now. I was suggesting to just remove the "Taxonomy" heading and upgrade the three subheadings, or some other solution might work as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 11:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Survey did not publish the site map for over 75 years, so the taphonomy and geological age of the Solo Men have been contentious matters – Does this mean they did publish the site map after 75 years, and the matter was no longer contentious at that point? I am a bit confused here.

Sites degrade after a while and after 75 years it's hard to further scrutinize the map, especially considering the poorly documented excavation process User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a sentence here explaining that the map was published in xxxx, but that it now was of limited use? I think it would really help the reader with understanding. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 11:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

swept the carcasses to the Ngandong site, where they created a debris jam – was it really the carcasses that created a debris jam, or were they just part of one?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volcaniclastic rock indicates deposition occurred during a volcanic eruption. – Below you state that deposition occurred after the eruption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changed to soon after User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Later racial anthropologists continued to push for some ancestor–descendant relation – You do not clearly state what they proposed (who would be the ancestor and who the descendant)?

Is it clearer now? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but directly stating "between Neanderthals and Australian Aboriginal people" would make it even clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

evolved independently from a local archaic human species. – It it was a single species, it must have been a global one rather than a local one, right?

No, it'd be like Europeans evolved from the local H. neanderthalensis, Chinese people evolved from the local Sinanthropus pekinensis, the Aborigines evolved from the (in a sense) local Javanthropus (Solo Man), etc. This is polygenism User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but should't "species" be in plural then, because you are talking about a number of species, not a single one? (without the a)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no because each race evolved from a different but singular archaic species. Racial mixing wasn't very popular, and creoles were viewed as genetically inferior and quickly selected out of the gene pool User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his more conservative view of archaic human diversity became widely adopted in the subsequent decades. – In which way is it "conservative"? Shouldn't it be the opposite? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's conservative because instead of having like a billion different species names even among present day races and ethnicities, he just decided to have only 3 species in the genus Homo, and later only 2 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe use "prudent" instead of "conservative"? Because the latter has other meanings ("resisting change") that give the sentence a different meaning, so it is ambiguous here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

prudent doesn't mean restrictive, it just means better User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Solo Men fit into this by hybridising with the anatomically modern ancestors of Australian Aborigines travelling south through Southeast Asia. – Please make clear this is not an universally accepted fact. Maybe "The Solo man was hypothesised to …" or similar.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

of which 200 came from Island Southeast Asia – was Southeast Asia an island or what does this mean?

As opposed to Mainland Southeast Asia, as in not Indochina, but Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, can you link the term to Maritime Southeast Asia? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ages of these specimens were based on the closure of the cranial sutures – This can be misleading, since previously in the text "age" referred to geological age. Also, it seems imprecise, since you cannot determine the exact age with this method. Maybe "The identification as adult or juvenile was based on …".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

though both males and females are exceptionally built compared to other Asian H. erectus. – Exceptionally in which way? This does not tell us much.

do you prefer the word robust? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would make it clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the dimensions of a modern human skull averages – "a" (single) skull can not average.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The brow ridge does not form a continuous bar like in Peking Man but curves downwards at the midpoint, forming a nasal bridge. – "Brow ridge" here refers to left and right taken together? Further below, you use the plural "brow ridges".

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

occipital torus (a projecting bar of bone) – I like this better than "half-ring", but in any case you may want to use the same wording both here and in the lead, as otherwise the reader will not know that the "half-ring" mentioned in the lead is the same as this thing.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which Weidenreich cautiously attributed to an enlarged gland which caused the incredible thickening of the bones — only the bones around the sella turcica, right, not the skull bones in general? Could be clearer. Also, I would give the year here (1951) to make clear it is not a recent study that makes this claim, but more of a historical footnote. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no, the incredible thickening of all the bones User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the growth hormones produced by the gland? Not sure if this is still considered a viable possibility though? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there are few who actually discuss the actual causes of such bone thickness. The others I've detailed on Homo erectus#Bone thickness User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to rename the "Cannibalism" section "possible cannibalism" since there is no consensus. This also reflects the content of the section better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more points, but would like to hear a second opinion on this cattle/cow thing before I might support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what do you want me to replace cow and cattle with? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the taxa you are indicating. I just see that the common term "wild cattle" exists as a synonym of Bovini, maybe use this instead of "cattle" and "cow" and link to Bovini (assuming the taxa you are indicating are within that clade)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's Bos palaesondaicus User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"wild cattle" and link to that species? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

Though the article has three supports, one review is very short, so I think it could benefit from one more thorough review, which will come soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could give dates in the captions of the historical photos for contxt.

done for the excavation photo User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is a 1951 skull reconstruction really accurate and appropriate enough as taxobox image? I could imagine missing parts may be based on things that would make it inaccurate today, and perhaps an unrestored skull would be better.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless, Haeckel's model inspired Dutch scientist Eugène Dubois" You should introduce the other people mentioned with nationality and occupation too then ( Ernst Haeckel, etc.).

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"(Out of Asia theory)" Could start with definite article ("the Out of Asia theory").

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"relevant sites a bed dating to" Link geological dating?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain that tibiae are lower leg bones.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first dating attempts could get dates of publication?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link stratum.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A lack of carnivore damage could mean they could feed" Repetitive double "could" can be varied.
"A lack of carnivore damage could mean they could feed enough without having to resort to crunching through the bone." It is unclear what "they" refers to, you could say "A lack of carnivore damage indicates sufficient feeding was possible without having to resort to crunching through the bone" or similar.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Research history" section doesn't really go into research, rather the history of discoveries and excavations?

should it be renamed? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like "Excavation history", "history of discoveries" or something would be more to the point? Not sure, Jens Lallensack might weigh in here, since he also suggested it to be separated. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's not just about excavation and discovery of specimens, especially the last par User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems off, but not a huge deal. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of specimens would make more sense under research history. Anatomy/description sections should be about anatomical features.

moved User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The classification of Aboriginal Australians, because of the conspicuous robustness of the Aboriginal Australian skull" Do we need to spell out Aboriginal Australian twice? How about saying something like "this modern human population" instead second time, to make it clearer and less repetitive?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The classification of Aboriginal Australians" I think you need a word before "classification" for context, like "phenetic" or "racial" or similar, it is a bit of a minefield of a subject, so we need to be careful. Might also want to get a link to physical anthropology in there somewhere,

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"has been a perplexing question historically for European science" I'd get "historically" in earlier, as this is key to understanding this is not a recent issue. Like "has historically been a perplexing question"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"ancestor–descendant relationship between European Neanderthal and Aboriginal Australian skulls" Hardly the skulls, but the populations? A skull can't be an ancestor.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"of evolution by Charles Darwin" You can just write Darwin at this point, as you mentioned him earlier.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Preliminarily, Oppenoorth drew parallels between the Solo Man skull and that of Rhodesian Man from Africa, Neanderthals, and modern day Aboriginal Australians.[2] At the time" Would be good to get a date in there, especially since you then say "at the time".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the specimen list is moved up, there is a big chunk of white space to the right that could be filled up with some images. I especially think it's good to show more of the subject of the article before you go on to show the Aboriginal skulls, the reader may be led to believe they're looking at archaic humans, which is unfortunate. Perhaps some from the galleries could be spread out more. WP:galleries are discouraged, but maybe you could try some of the multiple image templates, like in quagga.

like that? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks much cleaner to me. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"a few species have since been newly described" Newly is a bit too vague, you could just say "named" to avoid it.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"or regained some popularity" Don't think popularity has much to do with it, "regained some acceptance" would fit better.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 1950s, Ernst Mayr" Present him.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"(which were all classified into separate species or subspecies until the mid-20th century)" This makes it sound like it was seen as universal truth, and race was used as synonym for subspecies. You could maybe say "which some antropologists considered as belonging to separate species or subspecies" or similar.

race was in fact used as a synonym for subspecies (or human species and purported genera) until like the mid-20th century when the Nazis gave racism a bad name. That's why the older ones often say things like "a new race of man" to introduce "Eoanthropus" Piltdown Man or whatever subspecies/species/genus they cared to designate User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bad wording on my part, what I meant by "race was used as synonym for subspecies" is that the two are basically synonyms, so it looks odd to say that a "race was classified as a subspecies", it is the same already. The main point, though, was to preface it with "which some anthropologists considered as belonging to", because at least the idea that different humans races were separate species doesn't seem to have been prevalent. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? Even into the mid-20th century, names like "H. europaeus", "H. alpinus", or "H. indoeuropaeus" are still in use User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But not universally, which is the point; we can't make it seem like it was. "Racial/subspecies" classification was more common. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

does "which were classified into separate subspecies or even species until" work? I'm unfamiliar with any source that talks about the relative frequency that these kinds of classifications were published User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The claim that Australian Aboriginal" Missing plural s.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"incredibly robust" Sounds hyperbolic, why not just "very"?

I've been told not to use "very" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but "incredibly" is even worse. Highly could be an alternative. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and race became less salient" Perhaps say "the concept of human races".

what's the difference? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're talking about it as a concept within humans, it is still used in other fields of taxonomy or domestic animal breeding. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it says "race became less salient in anthropology", it doesn't make any reference to fungi User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, you need to add a link to the article about human races somewhere, as it is now only linked in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

linked race on first mention User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Solo Man fits into this by hybridising with" By having hybridised with.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"from the Sangiran/Trinil populations (H. e. erectus)" Saying "from the Sangiran/Trinil populations of H. e. erectus" could be clearer.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link morph and parallel evolution.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link Australoid. You could mention this is the term these anthropologists used to classify Australian aborigines under.

I think most people will understand Australoid includes Australians User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You never know, these aren't exactly common terms, and you don't explain that this term refers to a historical "race" when you mention it. You could for example say "The racial classification of Aboriginal Australians (historically classified as the Australoid race)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I also mention the other races normally included under Australoid? That'd be dark-skinned ethnicities from India, Southeast Asia, and the rest of Oceania User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "as part of the Australoid race", to indicate it didn't exclusively include them. Don't think it is relevant here to mention the others, if Solo Man was not specifically said to be connected to them. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So when and by who was the trinomial Homo erectus soloensis coined, and what do we base on that this is the currently accepted name? You could include some modern sources that use the name and why. The establishment of this new combination isn't covered anywhere in the article.

that's a bit complicated because a lot of people were suggesting to subsume all these populations such as "Pithecanthropus", "Sinanthropus", etc. (including Solo Man) into Homo, but they were spitballing a lot of names. The first I see of subsuming Solo Man into a subspecies is Weidenreich 1940 [5] where he recommends "H. neanderthalensis soloensis" because he believed "Neanderthal" in a broad sense of the word was the last stage before modern man (So it goes Gigantopithecus → Pithecanthropus → Javanthropus → neanderthalensis but not the European one → Aborigenes). I haven't found anyone who says "this was the first person who used H. e. xyz combination" for any of the H. erectus subspecies User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs further investigation then, as the intro confidently starts out with "Solo Man (Homo erectus soloensis) is a subspecies of H. erectus". We need to establish if this is the current consensus to state it this outright, and we need to figure out roughly when the the term came in to use, should be possible through Google Scholar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

found it at last User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be mentioned and elaborated on in the prose? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

end of 3rd par User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Solo man was first sunk into H. erectus by American physical anthropologist Carleton Coon in 1962." That is pretty cryptic, it could also be read as if it was just considered a species synonym. If he source says it was considered a subspecies in that publication, state it outright. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain derived feature.

I juxtaposed it with "early Javan H. erectus" because I don't wanna use primitive and evolved. Maybe "more archaic" would be clearer? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can say in parenthesis that the terms primitive and advanced were use historically, you shouldn't retroactively change the meaning of the sources. When you get to modern sources, you can use the modern terms. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

derived is only used once with a source from 2008 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine then, but perhaps derived feature could be linked. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It is quite thick, especially at the lateral ends (nearest the edge of the face)." What is? Last noun was nasal bridge.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Views and notes of (from left to right) Skull XI from the front, back, side, and top, and Skull VI from the underside" Perhaps state by who and when in the caption?

It's from Weidenreich's posthumous monograph so I'm not sure if I should put 1948 or 1951 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "Weidenreich's notes" without date then, but I see you already linked him. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"caused the incredible thickening of the bones" Again, incredible makes it sound like we're describing something from a fairy tale.

H. erectus calvaria are so thick, they were sometimes confused for turtle carapaces. I would consider it an apt description User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but see WP:editorializing. We shouldn't judge what is credible or not, just describe it. Incredible doesn't really mean anything descriptively. What do the sources say?

"...Solo man, taking into consideration the extraordinary thickness of the cranial bones and the large size of the skull, had a large [pituitary] gland" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps better to use the wording of the source. "Extraordinary" is more descriptive anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tibia A is much more robust than Tibia B and is consistent overall with Neanderthal tibiae" I think you can begin this with "of the two known tibiae" for context.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Palaeohabitat is under culture? Seems it would make more sense as its own section.

Where you live and the kinds of environments, plants, creatures, other human settlements, etc. the landscape features is a big part of your culture and way of life. For example, History of Indigenous Australians (not a quality status article, but it should be) includes geography and ecology under the Early history section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, geographical distribution affects culture, yes, but going from that to putting distribution under culture is a stretch, it's the opposite cause and effect. As written, the Palaeohabitat section as nothing at all to do with culture, does not even attempt to link the to, and like all other taxon articles, should be its own section. This is not an article about an ethnic group of modern humans anyway, but about a taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the section discusses their landscape, demographics (to the limited extent possible), interactions with other indigenous humans, and large creatures and predators they had to contend with, basically their home, so if we have a Culture section, environment should be included in there User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (the same concepts would be dealt with in habitat sections for any animals without culture), but it's not a deal-breaker. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"include the tiger" Spell out the common name of the particular subspecies.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"a sizeable population of H. e soloensis before the volcanic eruption" What volcanic eruption? Better to give a date for it if you use definite article.

the volcanic eruption described in taphonomy User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is many sections earlier, you can't expect the reader to necessarily get the connection, so you could give a dating for it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"before the volcanic eruption which resulted in their interment" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, because I report brain size as a range for Solo Man, should I also report modern human brain size as a range within 2 standard deviations (so 930 to 1,500)? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have room for it, but the point does get across as is. Do the sources about Solo Man give these ranges? FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

those don't talk about modern human brain size at all, I assume because the people reading it should probably know what it is roughly User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works either way then. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to link to for bone culture? And any way to make it clearer what it is at first mention?

bone technology? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, link it? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to what? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bone technology. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who put that article there? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link andesite.

it's already linked in taphonomy User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the Acheulean was invented in Africa" Odd way to put it, "the Acheulean emerged in Africa" would make more sense.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Though a strict "Movius Line" is not well supported" You should indicate what it is. For example, a "Movius Line separating x from y" or "a dividing Movius Line".

in the preceding paragraph User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"So, they interpreted at the least Skulls IV and VI" The definite article is not needed here.

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule." When?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Solo Man were" Incongruent tense.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link cannibalism.

done

I think "Possible cannibalism" could be renamed, as only a tiny minority of the section is even about it. You could call it possible antagonistic behaviour, pathologies, or similar.

only the last 3 sentences don't talk about assaulting or eating people, I would hardly call that a tiny minority User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonism, yes, but almost none of it is about cannibalism, making the title misleading. The folloing is basically the only part of those two paragraphs that cover cannibalism, and alternative explanations are presented before and right after, taking much more space, so I don't think the current title is warranted: "Cannibalism and ritual headhunting have also been proposed for the Trinil, Sangiran, and Modjokerto sites (all in Java) based on the conspicuous lack of any remains other than the skullcap. This had been reinforced by the historic practice of headhunting and cannibalism in some modern Indonesian". FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fixed "presuming this was done by other humans to access and consume the brain" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intro could mention its features were more derived than its earlier relatives, which is pointed out early in the anatomy section.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"They manufactured simple flakes and choppers (hand held stone tools)" The article body seems less certain these were definitely made by Solo Man.

how? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example "Because of wear caused by the river, it is difficult to identify with confidence that some of these rocks are actual tools". FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"some of these rocks" not all User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The skulls sustained damage" The article body seems to indicate it is only some of the skulls?

considering all the skulls are not 100% complete, they are all damaged. That's why they suggested all the Ngandong specimens were killed (other than Skulls IV and VI). Skulls IV and VI show signs of healing, so they suggested they were assaulted but survived User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk, just seeing how you're going responding to the last round of actions from Dunk... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy in real life the last days, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me now with the last few changes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

"modern human immigration into the area, which began roughly 55,000 years ago". This figure is not supported in the main text and a span might be better than one figure as the dating is so disputed.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as technology, they produced". This seems ungrammatical to me.

changed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"H. e. erectus". Java man would be more familiar to most readers.

changed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The species probably went extinct with the takeover of tropical rainforest" Maybe "transition to tropical rainforest"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"continuing excavation of the site". presumably Haeckel's site, but this should be clarified.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One of their missions was to firmly distinguish Tertiary and Quaternary deposits, among the relevant sites a bed dating to the Pleistocene discovered by Dutch geologist Carel ter Haar in 1931, downriver from the Trinil site, near the village of Ngandong". I lose you here. I think the grammar has gone wrong.

Tertiary and Quaternary beds on the island of Java were not well distinguished, so the Survey wanted to have more detailed stratigraphic maps of the island. One of the relevant beds which had the potential of more solidly defining the Quaternary on Java was a site ter Haar had reported near Ngandong. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Von Koenigswald, who was hired principally to study Javan mammals, was let go in 1934." Let go is an HR euphemism. Sacked? Contract not renewed?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1935, the Solo Men remains" Presumably the ones recovered 1931-3, but if so you should specify that they were designated as Solo Man.

I don't understand User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead you say that Solo Man is the name given to the bones found 1931-3. You do not spell this out in the main text, which says "From 1931 to 1933, 12 skull pieces (including well-preserved skullcaps) as well as two right tibiae (shinbones, one of which was essentially complete) were recovered under the direction of Oppenoorth, ter Haar, and German-Dutch geologist Gustav Heinrich Ralph von Koenigswald." It is a pedantic point, but it is so basic that I think you should say here that they were designated Solo Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Solo Man refers to all the specimens from that site along the Solo River. Like how the Peking Man refers to all the specimens from the Zhoukoudian, not just the first few User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it should be "Solo Men". "Man" can cover both sexes but "Men" implies that they were all male. Ditto with with later mentions of Solo Men.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"is of limited use now anyways". I would delete "now anyways". It is superfluous and "anyways" is too colloquial.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Rhodesian Man should be linked.

it already is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1950, Ernst Mayr entered the field of anthropology". Mayr was an anthropologist long before 1950.

changed to paleoanthropology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The matter of Australian Aboriginal ties to Asian H. erectus was expanded upon in the 1960s and 70s" This is vague and colloquial. Maybe "The claim that Australian Aboriginal were descended from Asian H. erectus was expanded upon in the 1960s and 1970s".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The multiregional model was not ubiquitously supported." "not ubiquitously" is a gross understatement.

I wouldn't characterize it like that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The alternate hypothesis, first proposed by Jacob in 1973, is that the Sangiran/Trinil and Ngandong/Ngawi/Sambungmacan populations were sister groups that evolved parallel to each other.[15] If the alternate is correct, this could warrant species distinction as "H. soloensis", but the definitions of species and subspecies, especially in palaeoanthropology, are poorly drawn.[16]" I think it is confusing to finish the section with a hypothesis which is now generally rejected.

I wouldn't consider it rejected, just not widely discussed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the Ngandong Fauna". I do not think Fauna should be capitalised. Ditto with other mentions of Fauna.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"By 125,000 years ago, the climate became much wetter". Perhaps worth mentioning that this was the height of the Eemian, when temperatures are thought to have been hotter than today, although of course you can only go by what your sources mention.

the warming I think is only really relevant to the poles where a large portion teeters just below or above freezing, so even a few degrees change is significant. The tropics mainly consider precipitation User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"more typical Punung Fauna — namely modern humans, orangutans, and gibbons — probably could not penetrate the island until it was reconnected to the continent 80,000 years ago". It sounds odd mentioning modern humans in this context both because they could cross water and they did not reach the area before 80,000 years ago.

It's unclear when boats were invented, the earliest definitive evidence comes from the Mesolithic. Is "after 80,000 years ago" better or should I remove modern humans? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove modern humans as not relevant since they had not then reached the area. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the transition to tropical rainforest." I do not understand this. The Solo H. erectus sub-species did survive the Eemian tropical forest phase. If the comment refers only to the mainland, this should be clarified.

it mainly talks about the disappearance of the Sundaland savannah corridor. The height of the Eemian doesn't necessarily confer to the total disappearance of open habitat, otherwise all the other open woodland species contemporary with Solo Man would've also gone extinct. And we are looking at a terminal population of a species on its last legs User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the site is post-Eemian and shows that this sub-species of erectus had survived the transition to tropical rainforest. Presumably the site dates to a period of transition back to woodland and savannah? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual date of the Punung Fauna was in 2007 argued to be Eemian contrary the source currently used and its many predecessors, which is no longer tenable in light of the most recent dating attempt of Ngandong to after the Eemian instead of the Penultimate Glaciation. These glacial/interglacial cycles don't necessarily mean fully savanna/fully rainforest, seeing as tropical rainforest represented by the Punung Fauna took over during a glacial period User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused. Are you saying that the comment was made at a time when the site was believed to date to the Penultimate Glacial? The passage reads as if it is an explanation of current thinking. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is current thinking. The Ngandong savanna woodland fauna was replaced by the Pungung tropical rainforest fauna. No one has ever contradicted this. I'm unaware of any Eemian sites on Java, but it was likely warmer and more humid than the conditions of the Penultimate glaciation User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if H. erectus likely went extinct on Java in the Eemian and the island was cut off by a high sea level, how could Solo Man have been on Java soon afterwards? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H. erectus does not have to go extinct during interglacial periods, the same way other woodland creatures don't have to either. They relatively not as fit for the environment as typical Punung fauna, but that didn't matter at the time since they were not yet in competition with the Punung fauna. Also the Eemian doesn't necessarily confer to the total disappearance of open habitat. Even today, Java has open woodland and savannas User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the sentence we are discussing says that it did go extinct. It needs amendment if that is not what you mean. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So Java began transitioning to a jungle biome at the start of the Eemian, but this wasn't reversed at the exact date the Eemian ended, otherwise the Punung fauna wouldn't have been able to succeed. H. erectus went on the decline as the jungles expanded, sheltered in the last open-habitat refuges of East Asia until extinction. Solo Man was among the relict populations. The jungles wouldn't go on the decline until the Last Glacial Maximum User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused and this is probably because I have not made clear what I think the problem is, so I will try to spell it out in detail. During the Penultimate Glacial Period sea levels were low and H. erectus was able to cross by land between Java and the mainland. (You put the Penultimate Glacial Maximum at 135,000 years ago, which seems a bit late, but I do not have access to your source.) This was followed by the Eemian interglacial, c. 130,000 to c. 115,000 years ago, with the maximum c. 125,000 years ago. You say "By 125,000 years ago, the climate became much wetter, making Java an island, and allowing for the expansion of tropical rainforests. This caused the succession of the Ngandong fauna by the Punung fauna, which represents the modern day animal assemblage of Java, though more typical Punung fauna — namely orangutans and gibbons — probably could not penetrate the island until it was reconnected to the continent after 80,000 years ago." You have expressed doubt whether modern man could have crossed the sea at that time, so I assume that you think H. erectus could not have crossed between Java and the mainland between before 125,000 years ago and after 80,000 years ago. You then say "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the transition to tropical rainforest." I would take the transition to tropical rainforest to have occurred c. 130,000 to 125,000 years ago, meaning that Solo Man, a sub-species of H. erectus, probably became extinct on Java at this time. In your latest post you say that H. erectus survived by sheltering in refuges in East Asia, presumably meaning the mainland as you say they probably became extinct on Java, but they could not have crossed the sea to Java. You say that the Ngandong site dates to between c. 117 and 108 thousands of years ago, but that is after you say that H. erectus probably became extinct on Java, which does not make sense. Have I misunderstood what you are saying, and if so how?

BTW "the climate became much wetter, making Java an island" is wrong. It was not the wet climate which made Java an island, but the heat melting ice caps and raising sea levels. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hottest peak of the Eemian occurs 125,000 years ago, and corresponds with the warming and humidifying of Southeast Asia. Sundaland sinks as sea levels rise, and tropical rainforests begin to encroach on open savanna and woodland habitat over the next several tens of thousands of years. The peak of the Eemian does not necessarily preclude the persistence of savanna on Java. H. erectus goes on the decline and shelters in the few open-habitat refuges of East Asia, which includes Ngandong anywhere from 117–108 kya. Though the Eemian ends 115 kya and sea levels fluctuate, the climate is still wet enough to permit continued expansion of tropical rainforests. H. erectus, a savanna specialist, inevitably goes fully extinct (sometime after Ngandong), the precise time and location are of course unknowable due to the Signor–Lipps effect. 80 kya, sea levels dip low enough to the point Java is reconnected to the mainland, but the climate is still wet enough to permit the domination of tropical rainforests, despite it being a glacial period, which allows the Punung Fauna to immigrate onto the island. Savanna momentarily resurges at the Last Glacial Maximum 20 kya, but soon retreats. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the transition to tropical rainforest" is wrong. Maybe "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the loss of the last open habitat refugia"? On second thoughts, what you are saying is that the transition to tropical rainforests was long drawn out and continued past the end of the Eemian. However, this is not made clear in the article. I think it would be clearer to say "H. erectus, a specialist in woodland and savannah biomes, likely went extinct with the loss of the last open habitat refugia." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This has been reinforced by the historic practice of headhunting and cannibalism in some modern Indonesian, Australian, and Polynesian groups." I do not see the relevance of this as all the erectus groups died out long before modern humans reached the area.

At this time, as discussed in Classification, these races were believed to have descended from H. erectus from whom they inherited their savage cultural practices, as they still required a lot of evolution to reach more civilized mannerisms User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to spell out that the comment is based on a descent of modern man in the area from erectus which you say above has been disproved. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a first rate article but I have some further queries on earlier parts which I will raise. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

"In order to find more remains of Java Man, the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin tasked German zoologist Emil Selenka with continuing excavation of Trinil" You have just said that European experts dismissed Bubois's findings. Maybe clarify that dismissal was not universal.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"American palaeontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn and his apprentice William Diller Matthew" Apprentice sounds pejorative. Maybe protege.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A 2021 genomic study indicates that, aside from the Denisovans, modern humans never interbred with any of these endemic human species, unless the offspring were unviable or the hybrid lineages have since died out." As ereectus died out long before modern humans reached the area surely the words from "unless" onwards are superfluous.

I figured I'd add that in given the Signor-Lipps effect User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"finally 117 to 108 thousand years ago at Ngandong." This assumes that there are no undiscovered later sites, a very unsafe assumption.

Others can weigh in here but this is standard practice for a taxon only known from 1 site. Like Oxalaia reports the species existing from 100.5 to 93.9 mya because it's only found from the one place which is roughly dated to that time interval. When we say this is the fossil range, we don't mean it evolved 100.5 mya and went extinct 93.9 mya, we're saying this is where it appears in the fossil record User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It is unclear if this apparent bone technology can be associated with Solo Man or later modern human activity" In the lead you state as a fact that the technologies were Solo Man ones.

No, the lead says "They manufactured simple flakes and choppers (hand held stone tools), and possibly spears or harpoons from bones..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor quibbles. My main remaining query is the dating. It seems odd to date a sub-species so specifically as 117-108,000 years ago, which you do in the infobox. Is there a source for dating the sub-species, not just the site, so narrowly? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.