Talk:Solo Man

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Deku link (talk · contribs) 08:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a. The prose is incredibly awkward in a lot of places and disjointed, most notably in the lede. Although it's not terrible, it would definitely need to be touched up to be GA status. Given updates to the lede, the prose is now up to snuff for GA status.

1b. Overall layout and MOS are good.

2. Sources used are excellent and displayed properly

3. Wide breadth of information in a logically layout without going on tangents

4. NPOV preserved

5. No edit warring or vandalism for more than a year.

6. Excellent images of the skull casts and usage of maps.

I could definitely see this passing if the prose was touched up, as everything else is in line with GA criteria.

could you be more specific?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course. I'll start with things that feel awkward or disjointed in the lede:

• 1. "One female may have been 158 cm (5 ft 2 in) in height and 51 kg (112 lb) in weight, and males were probably much bigger than females." - Which female is this referring to? If it's a known specimen, give I'd say give the designation and clarify it's a female specimen. "males were probably much bigger than females" sounds awkward as well, do we not have any male specimens? If so, something like "it is speculated males were much larger." If we do, clarify how researchers drew that conclusion based on male specimens.

they don't have actual catalogue numbers so it'd end up being "tibia B was estimated at..." which sounds weird. Some specimens are simply much bigger than others, so we assume big ones were male and small ones were female, because we assume males were much bigger than females   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• 2. "The Solo Men likely inhabited an open woodland environment along with elephants, tigers, gaur, tapirs, hippos, and more." more of what, exactly? I think it should just be narrowed down to what animals are relevant to the geologic record and the niche and not be open ended (if it is, clarify what makes those animals significant)

that's like reading "Antarctica is home to penguins, seals, whales, and more" and being worried someone's gonna think "and more" refers to camels   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• 3. "For stone tools, they produced simple flakes and cores." Might want to clarify what technology complex this falls under or is akin to to be in line with other good hominin articles

it doesn't precisely fall under any complex   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• 4. "In accordance with historical race concepts, Indonesian H. erectus were originally classified as the direct ancestors of Aboriginal Australians." A nitpick, but you should probably clarify that this is no longer accepted (as you sort of do in the next sentence, but they could be better linked with a "however"), otherwise it feels a bit out of place in the lede.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• 5. "they far predate modern human immigration into the area roughly 55,000 years ago." a bit disjointed, I would change to something like "they far predate modern human immigration into the area, which began roughly 55,000 years ago."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• 6. "the species as a whole probably went extinct on Java with the takeover of tropical rainforest" I don't think "on Java" is needed since it's clear this species lived only on Java. Also, you should probably clarify how the "takeover of tropical rainforest" correlates to the extinction as is discussed later.

"and loss of preferred habitat"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• 7. "The skulls sustained wounds, but it is unclear if these injuries are the result of an assault, cannibalism, the volcanic eruption, or the fossilisation process." I would change this to "The skulls show evidence of wounds, but it is unclear..." or, if not all the skulls show the same wounds, perhaps clarify which are more common.

Deku link (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

in order to say what kind of wound it is, you'd need to know what inflicted it, which is either assault, the volcanic eruption, or the fossilization process   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77:I still take a bit of issue with the "and more" ending since it feels oddly open ended. I'm not assuming a reader would have a wild imagination about what was in the biome, but it just feels slightly disjointed. However, the rest of your explanations and changes are fine by me, and I'd say the lede is better for it. I wasn't aware of the tools not belonging to a complex but in retrospect that makes sense. As far as the wounds go, I meant more so what form the fractures take, but that may be more data than is really vital for this section. I'll go over the grammar and spelling of the article one more time for you just in case, but I do think with that out of the way the article passes all the GA criteria. I'll let you know once I'm finished. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

One more thing I want to clarify: "(compared to 1,270 cc for present-day males and 1,130 for present-day females)" is this referring to Homo sapiens? Paragon Deku (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

yes, early modern humans had much larger brain sizes so I can't just say "modern humans"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

So are we referring to early Homo sapiens or anatomically modern Homo sapiens (but not behaviorally modern)? Paragon Deku (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

present-day humans is referring to you and me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm talking about "present-day males" and "present-day females" as listed in the article. Is that referring to us? If so, I feel like that needs to be clarified because it's a little murky. Even though you or I may understand when talking about hominins that this is referring to the only extant hominin, a casual reader might not be aware of that, and it could also create confusion considering that Solo Man is extinct (a casual reader might think "present-day" refers to something else). Paragon Deku (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

what else would present-day refer to other than right now? The past? Also terms like H. sapiens or "behaviorally modern" are incredibly vague, so I try to avoid using them if I don't absolutely have to   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My point being that the layman reader is going to reach the words "present-day" and think "present day of what? Present day of this extinct hominin I'm reading about?" It's much more vague than clarifying that you mean anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My point is I'm trying to distinguish between anatomically modern humans from say 40,000 years ago which had much larger average brain size vs. anatomically moderns humans in the year 2021 who have smaller average brain size   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In which case I think clarifying "present-day Homo sapiens" helps the flow. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I know you're mainly reviewing from a prose angle but how do you think this would hold up at FA?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the ins and outs of FA guidelines, but I would say almost all of the basework is probably there. I think the only thing that could be improved is a few more citations throughout the text, but I don't fully know how big a focus that is for people who do FA reviews.

On another note, considering improvements to the lede, I'm going to go ahead and give this a pass for the GA status, since the prose in the rest of the article is sufficiently proficient and all the other requirements were met already. Thank you for working with me to improve the article, and congratulations! Paragon Deku (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed template

Dunkleosteus77 & any page-watchers - just a heads-up that a "citations needed" maintenance template was placed within the article's infobox for the related synonyms of "Solo Man" (Homo (Javanthropus) soloensis Oppenoorth, 1932; H. sapiens soloensis Dubois, 1940; H. neanderthalensis soloensis Weidenreich, 1940; Palaeoanthropus soloensis Evans, 1945; H. erectus ngandongensis Sartono, 1975). Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I think the article needs this. I put it in once and someone removed it because they said the ref was in the article, but I can't see it. This parameter should be used.YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources are there: "Oppenoorth, 1932", "Dubois, 1940", "Weidenreich, 1940", "Evans, 1945", "Sartono, 1975". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: These are authorities for those indiviual taxonomic names, but not references for synonymy.YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)