Talk:Australopithecus sediba/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• and an adult female partial skeleton – "partial adult female skeleton"?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• recovered from Malapa, Cradle of Humankind – would state here that this is a cave.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• which creatures could accidentally fall into – I'm not sure about the use of the word "creature". It is not scientific (and alludes to creation); also it seems to exclude Homo sapiens.

I never really noticed creature and creation have the same root, and I guess modern humans would be excluded from the list as the cave had already caved in by the time we came on the scene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• with less a pronounced brow ridge – "a less prinounced"?

fixed

• with less a pronounced brow ridge, cheek bones, and prognathism (the amount the face juts out) – less than what? Other Australopithecines?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The teeth are oddly small – "oddly" is not very encyclopedic; maybe "comparatively"?

I mean it was pretty odd to find such small teeth in an australopithecine. "Unusually?"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"quite small"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• but is similar to modern savanna chimps – Savanna chimps only eat c3 forest plants? Savanna chimps = Chimps that live in savannas?

Yes, savanna chimps are chimps which live on the savanna, and they eat the same food as forest chimps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• No other hominin bears evidence of eating bark – Does this mean that A. sediba does? Should be clearly stated then, do not let the reader guess.

"A. sediba seems to have eaten only C₃ forest plants such as some grasses and sedges, fruits, leaves, and bark...No other hominin bears evidence of eating bark."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• (columns running down alongside the nasal opening down to around the mouth) – what kind of columns? Colums of bone, cartilage, or a chamber? This has also two times "down"; one too much?

If you look at this image, you'll see there's a column of bone between the orbit and the maxilla on either side of the face (the lateral borders of the nose). These are called the anterior pillars. I'm not sure how to describe this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What about "a pair of bony bulges running down …" as explanation? The important things to understand are that 1) they are bone, and 2) it is an externally visible feature. "Bony bulge" might give a good idea here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The presence of species which evolved after 2.36 million years ago became extinct around 1.5 million years ago indicates – "and" missing? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• At last, one of my hominin articles is getting reviewed. I'm trying to get this article (and Paranthropus robustus) to FA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• When I have time I will review more, but can't promise anything at the moment. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The cave networks around Malapa comprise long, interconnected networks of caverns and openings 500 m (1,600 ft) long and 100 m (330 ft) wide. – Somewhat convoluted. Networks comprise networks? There are several networks? What, then, is 500 m long and 100 m wide – the whole set of networks? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Malapa site may have been at the base of an at most 30 m (98 ft) deep cavern system – without further details, I have no idea at all how I should imagine this. So the several networks, each 500 m long, are at the base of an 30 m cavern system? And why past tense? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It says "Caves near Malapa define a 500-m-long and 100-m-wide network of interconnected openings along chert-filled fractures. . .These trends, combined with

valley slope and bedding orientation, suggest that Malapa lies near the base of an originally >30-mdeep, strata-bound and fracture-controlled cave system eroded by valley incision"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• streeam – typo?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• an the African wild dog, – word to much

I don't see that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Megalotragus antelope, – "a"

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• phytoliths – better explain/link

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Because A. sediba had several traits seemingly convergent with Homo ergaster/H. erectus, particularly in the pelvis and legs, the describers postulated that A. sediba was a transitional fossil between Australopithecus and Homo. – But then they would be homologous, not convergent?

assuming that hypothesis is correct. Changed to "in common with"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Currently, the oldest Homo specimen is – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and search for "currently" for an explanation why this is not ideal.

If we discover an earlier Homo, this would be quite notable and the article would have to be updated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• A. sediba is now thought to have contemporaneous with H. ergaster/H. erectus and Paranthropus robustus in the Cradle of Humankind. – "been"

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• However, A. sediba could also represent a late-surviving morph or sister species of A. africanus unrelated to Homo. – See also linked page above for "however". I also like to use it, but you make heavy use of it. Here, "Alternatively" might be a better alternative.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• The very back of the brain is estimated to have been 7–10 cc. – The "back of the brain", what is that, a defined entity? If it is just the back part of the endocranium that is preserved, what does this volume tell us?

It says "The missing portion at the posterior aspect of the cranium is estimated to be approximately 7-10 cc"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• as true ancestor of Homo – "the"

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• For measuring brain volume, only the cranial vault of MH1 was preserved – Sounds as if everything else was destroyed by the researcher while measuring brain volume. Reformulate?

Removed "For measuring brain volume"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• assyemtrical – typo

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• However, such characteristics are also found in some A. africanus skulls – and this is a general comment, I see it in the entire article. We need author attributions! I think this was the one reason why the Neanderthal failed at FAC. When we state something without attribution, the reader will assume that this is the scientific consensus. This is not necessarily the case, and if we want to present a consensus, we need a secondary source to back this up. In all other cases, we need to make clear that we are citing single opinions (i.e., papers). We always need to write something like this: "However, Kimbel and Rak, in 2017, found that such …". Alternatively, "a 2017" study" works as well, just the year is important so that the reader sees how recent that study is.

I didn't think anatomical measurements were taken to be potentially controversial items (like should "The shape of the mandibular ramus is quite different between MH1 and MH2" be prefixed with "According to Berger"?). But anyways, changed to "However, such characteristics are also found in some A. africanus skulls from Sterkfontein Member 4, which Kimbel and Rak believed could indicate that these Homo-like attributes would have been lost in maturity"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, author attribution only for controversial statements, i.e. proposed hypotheses, claims, and anything that can be expected to get challenged or at least discussed in the future. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• In all likelihood – and you cite a single study, which is therefore given undue weight. We need to stay neutral. See point above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rearranged. That should go with "However, A. sediba could also represent a late-surviving morph or sister species of A. africanus unrelated to Homo" which is supported by 4 studies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• 85% of its adult size using a chimplike growth trajectory, – "assuming" instead of "using"?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• The lordosis (humanlike curvature) and joints of the neck vertebrae which indicate similar head posture to humans. – "which" is too much?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• the overall anatomy of the neck vertebrae are apelike – "is"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• A. sediba lacks a humanlike brachial plexus (which is identified in some A. afarensis), and the brachial plexus is responsible for nerves and muscle innervation in the arms and hands enhancing motor control. – I guess that the second part of the sentence is the explanation for "brachial plexus" and not specific for this species? Could be made clearer. Also, what does it mean that it is not humanlike? I think a bit more detail is needed here to make this information useful.

changed to "and the human brachial plexus is responsible"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the description, you switch tense for no obvious reason (e.g., "However, A. sediba seems to have a highly mobile lower back" vs "A. sediba had a broad and humanlike lower chest".

fixed this one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• The hip joint appears to have had a more humanlike pattern of load bearing than OH 62 assigned to H. habilis – does this mean "than the H. habilis specimen OH 62"?

that works too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• australopiths, australopithecines – I suggest to always use the same word when you mean the same thing. Otherwise the reader will asume that "australopiths" is something different. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

there is a difference depending on your definition of Australopithecus. "Australopith" refers to all members of the genus, and "australopithecine" refers to all members of Australopithecina. Australopithecina includes Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Kenyanthropus, and depending on who ask Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus. However, Australopithecus could extend to include Paranthropus and Kenyanthropus depending on who you ask, so australopith can or could not be synonymous with australopithecine. So, I just used "australopith" when the source specifically said Australopithecus and "australopithecine" when it said "australopithecine"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• though the shape of shoulder blade – "the"?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• importance in creating and using complex stone tools. – "important"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• a high horizontal angle – angle of what?

deleted (it relates to the presence/absence of the foot arch)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Carbon isotope analysis – lower case

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Such a feeding pattern is also done by modern savanna chimps – "observed in" or "present in" instead of "done"?

observed in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ar. ramidus – Ardipithecus was never spelled out in the article.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure if it is a good idea to abbreviate genus names in the first place; we have no space limits here (and therefore no reason to do this) and the average reader can hardly remember all of them!

There's Homo, Australopithecus (and Paranthropus = Australopithecus depending on who you ask), and 1 mention of Ardipithecus, so there really aren't much to keep track of   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• fracture-resistant foods – what does this mean?

that's the exact wording used by the source, "and they probably included bark and other fracture-resistant foods as at least a seasonal part of their diet"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• sagittal x transverse – too technical I think, maybe simplify to "80.8 mm long and 112.4 mm broad".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• (which would equate to an adult brain size 572–664 cc, significantly larger than the 420 cc observed) – maybe this is not necessary to mention, not really relevant as it only part of the line of argument proposed by this particular study, an assumption made just to prove this point, and that line of argument has become very clear already; it therefore doesn't add much.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• The nasomaxillary (from the nose to the upper lip) complex – "The nasomaxillary complex (bone between nose and upper lip)" to make this clearer? Because if you explain with "nose" and "upper lip", which are soft parts, the reader will assume that the term "nasomaxillary complex" refers to soft parts; it need to be made clear that the bone is meant.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Because resorptions occurs – resorption occurs

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• which are depository reflecting prognathism – I think you should give a little bit of background here and explain that prognathism changes with ontogeny, and how it changes in hominids. Otherwise I fear the reader will not get the point of the paragraph. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"which are depository, reflecting increasing prognathism with age"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• rest of article is ok, no more comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• I will pass it now, congrats. Please consider the comment about the author contribution though. I will stay away from any possible discussion at FAC regarding this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)