Talk:Australopithecus deyiremeda

Speculation?

Does speculation belong in the article? Wikipedia is supposed to have facts supported by reliable sources. "The authors also speculate that this species was most probably a descendant of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy's species) and possibly ancestral to a subsequent clade including genus Homo (the human genus) and Paranthropus (often termed "robust australopithecines")." Jcardazzi (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

To answer your second point, the source is http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/extref/nature14448-s1.pdf page 27, i.e. Nature. Narayanese (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Name

Any idea on what “deyiremeda” may mean? 46.198.207.81 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The name "deyiremeda" means "close relative" in the Afar language per https://www.cmnh.org/nature2015 (end of the second paragraph). I added it to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days...Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
• Taxonomy:
  • "was discovered on 4 March 2011 by local Mohammed Barao." ... maybe "local resident" instead of local? Maybe I'm being hyper senstitive but "local" sounds a bit like "native" and while I'm pretty sure that isn't meant, it's probably best to be clear.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• • "complete adult body of the mandible with all incisors" ... jargony - the "body" thrown in there is really jarring to the non-expert - suggest "complete adult mandible with all incisors"

it's not a complete mandible, it's missing the ramus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• • "The name deyiremeda derives from the Afar language meaning "close relative" because, existing so early in time, they considered A. deyiremeda to have been closely related to future australopiths." The problem with this article is that it's a bit convoluted. You use "they" in the second and dependent clause, but the subject of the first phrase is "name" which is confusing. Suggest "The name deyiremeda derives from the Afar language meaning "close relative" because, existing so early in time, the discoverers considered A. deyiremeda to have been closely related to future australopiths."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Anatomy:
  • "The upper canines are smaller than those of other Australopithecus, and are morphologically more like those of A. anamensis." As a non expert - I'm a bit confused by this sentence. The first phrase seems to contradict the second phrase - "A. anamensis" is an Australopithecus species, right? And the size is one of the characteristics that go into morphology, correct? So maybe clearer would be "The upper canines are smaller than those of most other Australopithecus, and are morphologically more like those of A. anamensis in other respects also."?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Palaeoecology:
  • is there an article we can link "fallback foods" to? Not required, but would be nice.

nope   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• • "Kenyanthropus based on forward cheekbones, three-rooted premolars, and small first molar" - I think either "Kenyanthropus based on forward cheekbones, three-rooted premolars, and a small first molar" or "Kenyanthropus based on forward cheekbones, three-rooted premolars, and small first molars" depending on which is more correct based on the sources.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• • " The Lomekwian is the earliest culture identified at 3.3 million years old" ... I'm not clear what is being referred to here - is this the very earliest culture of any hominid? Or is it just the earliest culture for the 3.3 million year mark? If the first - suggest "At 3.3 million years old, the Lomekwian is the earliest culture ever identified." Not sure how to word it better if the second is meant.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• • "and the knappers flaked off pieces of cores made of basalt, phonolite, and trachyphonolite." this phrase has no real connection with the first phrase in the sentence. Suggest making this phrase an independent sentence.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• • "Such a mosaic landscape is similar to A. anamensis and A. afarensis which seem to have no preferred environment." Um... no. This is comparing a landscape type to a hominid species. Pretty sure you meant something like "A. anamensis and A. afarensis which seem to have no preferred environment would have fit in well in such a mosaic enviroment." And perhaps something to tie the whole paragraph together?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• See also:
  • Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, Kenyanthropus all appear in the article body so per the WP:MOS, they shouldn't be linked in the see also too.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• The lead and the article make the statement that it isn't clear if this is actually a distinct species but then most of the article goes on to assume and put forth statements that assume the distinction between the two species. We should probably be a bit more equivocal in at least some of the statements otherwise the appearance is given that Wikipedia is endorsing the side of the distinction between the two species. I know this isnt' actually the editors viewpoint, it is more a function of how difficult it can be to write about a hypothetical and the desire to avoid constantly saying "if it was distinct from ..." but we do need to keep that clear in the article.

I'm confused, what do you want me to do?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's more that I'm not sure the uncertainty of whether or not this is a distinct species is being properly conveyed. What do FAs for similarly "proposed" species do about describing habitat, etc? This one won't be something that holds up the passing of the article, it's more of a ... slight concern? Ealdgyth (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

it's about the same situation as Australopithecus bahrelghazali   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)