Talk:Cro-Magnon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination shortly. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Prose

I intend to go through prose of individual chapters first, then circle back to the lead before tackling sources, MOS and other issues.

Chronology section

• ...earliest bones in Europe date to roughly 45–43 thousand years ago... - it seems very odd to me to indicate the range starting with the bigger number. I had a look at MOS:RANGE and MOS:DATERANGE, but found nothing to justify this order.

it's before the year zero so it's negative time. Like, saying 43–45 BC would be equivalent to saying 1920–1850 AD   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I had another look at the MOS, found nothing, but then I browsed few FA's having similar ranges and confirmed this (elsewhere). Nothing to do then in this respect then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• From here, the "Typical Aurignacian" becomes... - quotation marks seem to imply "not actually Typical Aurignacian", just as described in MOS:DOUBT. Should there be quote marks at all?

yes there should because it's overall a poorly defined term, but still used anyways   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• The above also applies to "Aurignacoid" or "Epi-Aurignacian" tools are identified... and other such instances.

yes, because their recognition is dubious   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Use of acronym EEMH is fine, but the full term should be spelled out at the first instance in the body of the article, not just the lead.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Around 29,000 years ago, marine isotope stage 2 begins and cooling intensifies. Does this mean that the marine isotope stage 2 is still ongoing and that the cooling is still intensifying? If not, the sentence should be in past tense.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Classification section

• I don't find it problematic for the purposes of GA (this one or in general), but I'd advise you to look for ways to break up long sentences to make the prose easier to follow to non-expert readers. For instance The Venus figurines, sculptures of pregnant women with exaggerated breasts and thighs, were used as evidence of the presence of the "Negroid race" in Palaeolithic Europe because they were interpreted as having been based on real women with steatopygia (a condition which causes thicker thighs, common in the women of the San people of Southern Africa) and the hairdos of some are supposedly similar to those seen in Ancient Egypt. could be simpler, but I don't find it a problem for GA.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Question: when you read "Other supposed subraces of the 'Cro-Magnon race' included..." does that in your head translate to "this is an incomplete list and there are many other names," or, "these are all the names"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I interpret that as "these are few examples, but not all the names"--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Demographics section

• They calculated that: from 40–30 thousand years ago the population was... - it is unclear who's "they"

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• There's an awful lot of numbers in that sentence mentioned above. It is not incomprehensible, but I feel those who are not just glancing across the section will have to move back and forth to compare and understand changes of the figures. I trust the sentence is fine as is, but it might be better presented in a table. - But this is just a suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

is it better with the numbers rounded off to the nearest hundred?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, keep the information as detailed as possible there. Any rounding would only make sense if exact numbers are shown someplace else.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Biology section

• All clear

Note: I would like to apologize for the delay - RL issues stepped in, but I expect to have sufficient time to edit by Jan 7. I'll take up the remainder of this review first then. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

that's alright, there's no rush   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Took a day longer... but resuming now. Thanks for your patience.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Genetics section

• There are several sentences in the second paragraph starting with They instead concluded that..., Because of these, they also concluded that..., and They reported that an Aurignacian individual... and I'm not quite sure who is referred to by "they".

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Society section

• There is no need to write "Brno, Czech Republic" three times, (appears here, in Classificatioin and in Religion) - once at the first menation should be enough. I mean to say, "Czech Rep" is probably needed only on the first mention.

it's a long article so I like to mention the country it's in every time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Housing

• ... the earliest hut identified comes from Moldova, Ukraine, which was dated to... - did you mean "Moldova and Ukraine" or something else? This reads as if Moldova is a city or a region in Ukraine.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• The chevron seems to have been a commonly used symbol on the Russian Plain, painted or engraved on bones, tools, figurines, and mammoth skulls. - use of the "seems" seems odd to me here. If the chevrons were common as indicated by the source, it might be better to remove this word - e.g. The chevron was a commonnly used... - because it somehow implies original research (as if you came up with the conclusion by interpreting sources not claiming the chevrons were common explicitly). Otherwise, a more precise attribution of the claim in the prose might also work: eg. X claims/it is a scholarly consensus that the chevrons appear to be common (or something along those lines). I'm not saying this is OR, but the sentence may be interpreted as OR. This is essentially the same type of issue as raised on the article talk page in the "Not quite a GAN" under "Genetics" - looks like a weasel, so such claims should be explicitly attributed in prose.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Portable art

• These have been speculated to have been an early counting system... - it is not clear is this postulated by Marshack or someone else.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Music

It is speculated that a few EEMH artefacts represent bullroarers or percussion instruments such as rasps, but these are harder to prove. - It is not clear by who.

that would depend on the specific artifact you're talking about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Language

Nonetheless, it has been controversially hypothesised that Eurasian languages are all related and form the "Nostratic languages" with an early common ancestor existing just after the end of the LGM. - It is not clear is this hypothesised by Pagel or someone else.

that's more related to the history of study of the "Nostratic languages" throughout the 20th century. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mortuary practices

• ...it is speculated that these cultures practiced human sacrifice either in fear, disdain, or worship of those with abnormal features, like in many present-day and historical societies. - It is not clear who speculated this. Could you clarify in the prose if this is a general consesus or otherwise.

"it is generally speculated..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

In media

• There are four images of works by Charles R. Knight, Hugo Darnaut, and Viktor Vasnetsov in the image. I think this section might include a short paragraph of few sentences on those and other such works to meet the comprehensiveness criterion.

no one talks about those 4 paintings specifically, they're more to demonstrate what "can be portrayed as highly muscular, hairy, or monstrous, and to represent a wild and animalistic character" means   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Article talk comments

• I would just like to note in this GAR page that the nominator has already received and addressed numerous remarks regarding the article and that I have read and considered them too. - no action required here.

MOS

• There are several instances of single-digit numbers as numerals where they should be spelled out per MOS:NUMERAL such as: ...identified 3 major lineages..., ...focused on hunting 1 species of large game..., ...seen in the 4 Epi-Gravettian huts from Mezhyrich..., and The 14,000 year old Grotte des Trois-Frères, France, features 3 sorcerers. There are other such instances too.

I like using numbers because my brain can more easily identify 3 over three   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are three instances of overlinking (to Mal'ta–Buret' culture, Radius (bone), and Haplogroup U (mtDNA)) - please remove extra links per WP:OVERLINK

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unit names should be spelled out (per MOS:UNITNAME) unless they are used frequently. I think cc and kg are used only 3 and 2 times respectively and certainly fall into this category. cm is used 21 times, with 9 instances in close proximity in the Music section. Those nine would certainly be better off left abbreviated (as well as all units converted in brackets).

those should all be commonly understood abbreviations for units   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• The article includes a mix of British and American English spelling variants. A tool listed few examples: Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), mustache (A) (British: moustache), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), fiber (A) (British: fibre), fibre (B) (American: fiber), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), colonise (B) (American: colonize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), modeling (A) (British: modelling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), any more (B) (American: anymore), gray (A) (British: grey), jewellery (B) (American: jewelry). - those terms not enclosed in brackets are actually in the prose. You should pick one of the two versions and consistently use it (unless such words are parts of direct quotations or proper names using such spelling).

it should be in British English. A lot of the above are in the titles of refs and not the actual prose   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is one dab link, but it is justified (Cro-Magnon (disambiguation)) - no action required.
• Checklinks indicates no problems - no action required.

Earwig's Copyvio Detector points to an issue. I suspect it is a false positive and asked for assistance in that respect. I'll continue as soon as I get response on the matter.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: No copyvio (also confirmed by Diannaa) - no action required.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Overall nice work. Some issues brought up here need work but nothing major, so placing on hold.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like only the comment on Charles R. Knight, Hugo Darnaut, and Viktor Vasnetsov is left unresolved now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they had a huge effect on EEMH perception at the time, more like they were affected by the historic scientific perceptions of EEMH, so they're more for visualizing scientific thought of the time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Wouldn't it be helpful if there was a sentence saying that? Or am I missing it?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think such works should be mentioned in the "in media" section to comply with comprehensive coverage criterion. A single sentence should probably be sufficient. --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me have another read.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

All GA criteria seem to be addressed now, so passing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)