Talk:Paranthropus aethiopicus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• These things are complicated but fun. Will review soon, at first glance, there's a bunch of duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

fixed

• Any cladograms?

copied from Paranthropus robustus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Reconstruction of KNM WT 17000" Isn't it just a cast or replica? Reconstruction would imply that missing parts have been added.

Missing parts were added (you can see some parts are shiny and the reconstructed parts aren't). This image emphasizes the implied areas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, nice. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Side view of KNM WT 17000" Also, this is surely just a cast, not the actual specimen as implied by the caption?

"Reconstruction of KNM WT 17000 (side view)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The Peninj Mandible assigned to P. boisei" Likewise?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• A bit of a shame the only skull isn't shown from the front too, but perhaps this[1] photo could be added as a double image with the one under description? Similar to the one in Lythronax under paleobiology.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• It seems a bit counter to most other such articles that you give classification before taxonomic history. Would probably be nice if it was consistent across articles and that it started with taxonomy.

it seemed easier to understand if Paranthropus and related confusion was introduced first before going into research history in this instance   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• "P. aethiopicus is only confidently identified from the skull KNM WT 17000 and a few jaws and isolated teeth" This would also logically be in the history section rather than classification, another argument to switching the structure around.

that's actually just repetition with the last paragraph of Research history   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• "A partial jawbone, KNM-WT 16005, was also discovered. They clearly belonged to a robust australopithecine" To the same or different individuals?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• "and recommended that Paraustralopithecus be invalid" Or more specifically a synonym, but of what?

Well in that instance they considered Paranthropus to be a synonym of Australopithecus, so they would have considered Paraustralopithecus a synonym of Australopithecus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The discovery of these specimens discredited earlier hypotheses that P. robustus was the ancestor of the much more robust P. boisei" Why?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Ferguson's classification is almost universally ignored" Why?

Ferguson has a long history of making up new species names for single specimens with little justification. I remember Walker remarked in his book something like "He's always doing stuff like this" when talking about "P. walkeri"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• "including a juvenile specimen, L338y-6.[10] In 2002, a 2.7–2.5 Ma maxilla, EP 1500" Why only give a date for the latter discovery?

year when the site was shown to produce P. aethiopicus remains   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• The synonyms in the taxobox could also get authorities listed.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• You could make it clearer in the caption why you are showing the P. boisei mandible. State it was similar or something like that.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• "postcanine megadontia" Which is what?

"exhibiting postcanine megadontia with relatively small incisors and canines (based on the tooth roots) and large cheek teeth"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• " from 2.7–2.3 million years ago." Both here and underpaleoecology you should state the geological times it lived during.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• "However, it is argued that Paranthropus is an invalid grouping" You state this as if it's a fact, but in the article body you indicate it is udner debate.- So the intro should have less secure wording and state only some researchers argue this (if that's the case, otherwise the title should be moved).

That's why it starts with "it is argued that"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

But that's not the same, "it is argued" implies that this is the main hypothesis, when the article body makes clear this is not necessarily the case. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"it is debated"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• " Whatever the case" Very informal wording for an encyclopaedia.

Seems formal to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think you need to get much more into the nitty gritty of who exactly argues for what classification, when and why. It is a very short article now, and since most that has been written about it is probably taxonomic stuff, the article should reflect this and give much weight to it, where it seems kind of glossed over now.

There's too many researchers who discuss these 3 species, it'd be too many names and be a really pointless list since it's really the same back and forth argument   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

We need some key players and revisions mentioned then, I don't think the current hand waviness of that section is justifiable when the article is so short. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The debate's been going on long before P. aethiopicus was even discovered, and it mainly revolves around the definition of the word "genus". So it'd just be "Dr. Smith said that he doesn't accept Paranthropus. But, Dr. Johnson does recognize Paranthropus. But, Dr. Gregorio does not recognize it. But, Dr. Stephano does recognize it. But, Dr. Zhivago does not recognize it. But..." forever and ever, and it's pointless because new arguments aren't brought up, it's just an unsolvable back-and-forth like. It's like the argument for either trying to divvy up Homo erectus or just have one really long-running species (and the reasons for either are quite arbitrary and boil down to the author's personal preference)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Though they may seem obvious, you could give the meanings of the original genus name and the specific name.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, I still see two major issues that I don't think can be brushed off so easily. That the article is structured very differently from other similar articles in having classification first, while readers would expect to read about the discovery first, and the complete lack of date and authors in the classification section. I'm not sure I can pass this if these two things are not dealt with, they are kind of deal breakers when it comes to structure and context. You don't have to write classification as a back and forth between every single paper ever written, just give the proponents of each scheme and when their key studies were published. Alternatively, we can ask for a second opinion.

Should I just copy/paste some things from Paranthropus robustus?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If it covers the same ground, Id say yeah. If it works there, it should work here, no? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is just "British geologist Bernard Wood and American palaeoanthropologist William Kimbel are major proponent of monophyly" good?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but who are proponents of the opposite? FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

included Walker   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool. So it seems there are more people for than against? The reader wouldn't have known unless you spelled it out, so it is definitely helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the case, those are just 3 players Wood happen to name while really quickly discussing the debate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, could be expanded in the future. Anyway, will promote now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)