Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Lineage (anthropology)

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 12:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Lineage (anthropology)

(
)
5x expanded by Me Da Wikipedian (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC).

  • Striking ALT1, as it does not contain the nominated article nor any reasonable place to link to it. You need a further 104 characters for this to become eligible.--Launchballer 15:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
In the article, and sign your posts.--Launchballer 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Needed to anyway for some minor stuff, how is it now? @Launchballer: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Still needs another 42 characters. You should consider installing WP:DYKcheck so you can check yourself.--Launchballer 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Now added some stuff about the 2 types of ambilineal, which I may expand into there own sectrions at some point. Hows this now @Launchballer: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me Da Wikipedian (talk • contribs)
How are you remembering to put my username in your comments and not- anyway, length requirement met. Full review needed.--Launchballer 20:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you do said review, and if not who and when will do it @Launchballer:Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
It won't be me any time soon, I have a policy of doing my QPQs oldest first. Any other editor is free to review this in the interim.--Launchballer 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nominated in time. 5x expansion. No QPQ need. Current hook as written is not reflected in the text of the article. Another hook please. --evrik (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Nom is blocked and based on behavior likely a sock (but I haven't figured out who yet). Not to mention multiple issues with submission noted above. We have enough work to do, we don't need to be wasting time on this. RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I can however respond, here, and I will. It was in the article when it was submitted. Anyways, here is a new one:Did you know that lineages often have religious significance, determining ones religion and there role in that religion https://collegeofarms.euclid.int/tracing-roots-the-significance-of-family-trees-in-traditional-societies/. Also, I do not appreciate unfounded allegations by @RoySmith: that I am wasting their time and a sock. Thank you. @Evrik @Me Da Wikipedian: (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I am posting the above from this this post. The user has suggested:

  • Alt2 ... that lineages often have religious significance, determining ones religion and their role in that religion?
Source: "Links between childhood religious upbringing and current religious identity". Pew Research Center. -
I am AGF that this user will be welcomed back to the fold. --evrik (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @AirshipJungleman29: my apologies if I have caused some confusion or consternation. Once the author posted an alternate hook I found reasonable, I considered the discussion there moot. Also, in fairness, I archived a bunch of discussions at the same time. As for the comments made by @Rjjiii:, well I didn't consider them negative as much as a suggestion. Honestly, I think the piece was overcited. I did read the passage and thought it matched the citations listed. I have changed one word and I think it all matches up. Hope this addresses your concerns. --evrik (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian:, where does the cited source discuss religion? Rjjiii (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

their reply Rjjiii (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm going to put this out there for a new review. --evrik (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I read through the article and made the following notes with quotes from the 17 May 2024 version of Lineage (anthropology):

  • The topic is "in anthropology", the study of humanity, but "apical ancestor" is piped to common descent which would imply that there are multiple species of humans.
  • Sentences are so complicated that they will be difficult to parse for many readers, including the sentences in the lead paragraph.
  • "apical ancestor" is never glossed or mentioned in the linked article.
  • Some statements seem to be contradicted by their cited sources. The Hmong source seems to be saying something different than the Wikipedia article.
  • Are those 4 people members of a matrilineal society? The description on commons doesn't go into that kind of depth.
  • "matrilineage" is (incorrectly?) capitalized once, used (incorrectly?) as an adjective once, and used as a countable or uncountable noun.
  • "her children's children" this should be "her daughters' children" right? It's also a somewhat confusing way to phrase it.
  • The gerund phrase "being a Jew in the Jewish religion" is another phrasing that is hard to parse.
  • "such as much of South East Asia" is cited to a topic index page on Britannica. The "matrilineal society" article on Britannica says, "Matrilineal societies are found in various places around the world, such as in parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, and India."[1] Are unilineal kinship groups in general more common there?
  • Is bilateral descent a type of lineage? The Wikipedia article says a lineage is unilineal in the lead. The sentence indicating that an ambilineal lineage can be bilateral descent is cited to 3 glossary entries.
  • The Wikipedia article says "Ambilineal lineages are relatively rare in more under-developed societies, such as South East Asia" and the cited source says "In ambilineal societies, which are most common in Southeast Asian countries,".[2]
  • The Wikipedia article says "very common in modernized societies, such as the United States and Western Europe." but the cited source says "most people in the United States look to both their father’s and mother’s sides"[3] That's bilateral descent.
  • "Bilineal" has at least two meanings and it's not clear how it's being used here.
  • It's not clear what "The structure of lineages" refers to.
  • Parts of the article are cited to reliable sources, but large portions are also cited to dictionaries, glossaries, and topic indexes.
I think there too many issues to resolve, and it would require rewriting large portions of the article. Rjjiii (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lineage_(anthropology)&oldid=1247453369"