Talk:Homo longi/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 20:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This page has sat long enough, I'll do this review. For issues that have been resolved, please use  Done, strikethrough, or some other means of indicating when an issue has been resolved. Etrius ( Us) 20:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Image rights appear to be in order.
• Caption: '(pictured top)' change to 'pictured above'

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:SANDWICH, consider moving the "China edcp relief location map" to the infobox

I don't think that's possible since it's a template, not an actual file Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps moving the location map to below the infobox, and putting the bridge images in a gallery template after the 'Paleoenvironment' section would suffice. Etrius ( Us) 23:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Copy-vios

• It appears that [1] ripped the article wholesail. I checked the article before Aug 3rd, 2021, and confirmed that the text was already on Wikipedia. TLDR; not a copy-vio but worth mentioning.
• Earwig hasn't found anything else exciting
• No close paraphrasing noted on spot-checks.

Stability

• Nothing to note

Sources

• Link FN 4 to here [2], current url is dead.

I added a url but that is the doi listed on the site Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Consolidate duplicate refs FN 5 & 7

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Have AIbot archive sources

Prose

Lead

• Please specify that this is also referred to as the "Harbin Skull"

it's called the Harbin skull because it's the skull from Harbin, I don't think I really have to say "a nearly complete skull from Harbin (the Harbin skull)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, the Cladogram should be changed to reflect either "Harbin Skull" or H.longi. Etrius ( Us) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm just being consistent with Jinnuishan (skeleton), Xiahe (mandible), etc. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'Due to a tumultuous wartime atmosphere' WWII? Specify what war and cut 'tumultuous' WP:Puffery

Well there was the Chinese Civil War, which was interrupted by WW2, then the continuation of the Civil War, then many (most certainly tumultuous) events under the Maoist government Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I wrapped up the rest of the page, specify it was hidden from the Japanese invasion. Here's a good source if interested [3].

it wasn't just hidden from the Japanese, otherwise he would've turned it over in 1945 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not stated in the page that the skull was intentionally hidden from the Chinese after the Japanese left. The page states that he hid his profession, not the skull. Etrius ( Us) 21:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'represents the enigmatic' puffery, just say 'possibly related to'

it's more of a gloss of Denisovan because it's only identifiable by a genetic signature, so it is in fact enigmatic Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing on the fact that Denisovans are 'enigmatic'. Enigmatic by itself means little to non-technical speakers and removing the adjective still keeps the same core sentence meaning. The page later on goes into more detail on why it is a difficult classification. All in all, removal of the term enigmatic would keep the wording more encyclopedic. Etrius ( Us) 23:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'massively developed' more puffery, to my knowledge this is not a scientific term.

You can see the word "massive" in the titles of 2 of the sources so I don't see how this constitutes puffery Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's cited then its okay to leave it as is. Etrius ( Us) 23:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Dragon Man' name is not mentioned nor cited outside the lead.

that was a compromise on the giant move discussions you can see on the talk page Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Seen, thank you. Etrius ( Us) 21:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• 'concealed his former employment' This does not follow. Was he concealing the skull or the fact he was a laborer? Clarify.

He had to conceal that he worked for the Japanese army, so if he told the Nationalist or the Communist authorities he found a skull, he'd have to explain where and how. It isn't said so directly in the source, but if it's confusing I can clarify some more Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please clarify it further. That should be included if possible. Etrius ( Us) 21:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'tumultuous' is already implied by the preceding paragraph.

removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'provenance' excellent word but a tad bit WP:TECHNICAL. 'location of origin' works better.

I wouldn't have thought of provenance as a proper technical word, especially considering how often it's used in pop culture and fiction Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I see you linked the term, that will work fine. Etrius ( Us) 21:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'abandoned it' abandoned the name or the skull? Clarify.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'enigmatic' per above.

I still don't really see the problem, anytime I see Denisovans talked about it's always prefaced by "enigmatic" or "mysterious", like https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01408-0 "unlock more details about the prehistory of the enigmatic Denisovans" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Overall, excellently written.

Anatomy

• Despite the face being so wide, it was rather flat (reduced mid-facial prognathism), and resembles the condition found in modern humans, the far more ancient H. antecessor, and other Middle Pleistocene Chinese specimens. I think something is missing here.

what is it? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Does "the condition" refer to just the general facial structure or some kind of pathological goings on. "The condition" is vague phrasing. Etrius ( Us) 21:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'enormous' reword for an encyclopedic tone

Enormous is a completely valid word, I've used it before on Gorgonopsia, Gigantopithecus, whale, etc. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'The describers' specify who

I did? It's already stated who described the skull earlier Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Its mentioned in a preceding paragraph. Since it's mentioned at the beginning a new paragraph, it needs to be restated. I can assume its referring to the "original describers", but I can just as easy come to the conclusion it is a separate set of describers. Etrius ( Us) 22:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Paleoenvironment

• 'frigid' WP:Puffery

Puffery is not so rigid, I've used frigid many times when talking about ice ages or the poles, like Steller's sea cow or Neanderthal, and it's most definitely not an unscientific word Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that WP:PUFFERY is technically outside the scope of GA criteria, and I tend to have a very narrow view of what qualifies. These are suggestions for improvement but not 100% required. Etrius ( Us) 21:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment After reviewing, the page is very well done. A few bits of clarification and word clean-up are needed but otherwise, the page is nearly ready. Throwing the page on review and leaving it open until Sep. 22nd. Etrius ( Us) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77, making sure you saw my replies. I've summarized the bits the need to be taken care of:

• Clarify why he hid his profession and skull until 2018.
• "the condition" clarify what this means.
• Specify again who 'The describers' are.

The other suggestions are not necessary for GA status but welcome changes. Etrius ( Us) 21:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, did a few CE's. Attempted to strike a good balance between the words I pointed out and the prose you had, most of the edits I did were basic clarifications and cosmetic work. Article has passed GA review, congrats!!!! Etrius ( Us) 02:42, 21 September 2022 (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):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

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):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article passes GA review. Good work!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.