Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homo antecessor/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2022 [1].

Homo antecessor

edit
Nominator(s): Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. This is the article's 2nd time here because I was forced to go inactive all the way back in January, and the nomination of course had to be archived. Now that I (finally) have the time, I have re-nominated the article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will review but I did not get the ping. Any idea why? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I've been getting some bot errors @Dudley Miles and Jens Lallensack: are you getting this ping? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not. I once had the same problem and I was told it was because I had edited a previous message instead of creating a new one with the 4 tildes, but you seem to have created a new message so I do not know why you are having the problem. Do you get this Dunkleosteus77? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I did Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "Despite being so ancient, the face conspicuously parallels the morphology seen in modern humans rather than other archaic humans". "conspicuously parallels" is jargon and I am not sure what "conspicuously" means in this context. "more similar" would be clearer to the reader.
conspicuous as in it's unexpected Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. antecessor was predominantly manufacturing simple pebbles and flakes out of quartz and chert, although they used a variety of materials. This industry may represent a precursor to the Acheulean industry, which later became ubiquitous across Western Eurasia and Africa." This is not quite right. The African Acheulean long predates antecessor. The Wiley-Blackwell Enclopedia of Human Evolution dates it to 1.6 million years ago. Your source at [2] says that the unnamed TD6 technology may have evolved into European Acheulean, but I am not sure what this means if Acheulean came first.
Though the Acheulean in Africa is first identified that far back, the Acheulean in Europe wouldn't pop up for a little under a million years later. It's unclear how these early sites relate to the later Acheulean traditions of Europe, because the Acheulean could've been independently developed in Europe after Africa (which means these early European traditions are ancestral to all or at least some European Acheulean traditions) or it could've been ported up from Africa and diffused through Europe (so the contribution of these early sites may have been largely marginalized). I've added a bit more on it in the relevant section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consequently, they are postulated to represent the ancestor of the Acheulean industry, wherein these and several other techniques would evolve further predominantly in sites across Western Eurasia and Africa." You suggest here that Gran Dolina tools may have been the origin of Acheulean in Africa as well as western Euroasia. I do not think anyone says that it is the origin of African Acheulean and it is now fringe to suggest that it was the origin of European Acheulean since, as you say, antecessor is now thought to be an offshoot without descendants. The paper you cite at [3] says that the Acheulean reached the Levant by 1.4 to 1.2 ma and was probably brought to Europe by Homo heidelbergensis. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added that study's conclusions and removed the part from the lead, but that study isn't saying all those early European industries were dead ends, it's saying that they didn't invent the typical Acheulean by themselves. While the typical European Acheulean is really only associated with H. heidelbergensis, it's impossible to rule out if antecessor and the makers of other similar early European industries were not interacting with other Eurafrican populations Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The known skeleton comprises elements of the face, clavicle, forearm, digits, knees, and a few vertebrae and ribs." I do not know whether "known skeleton" is a technical term, but it will not mean much to most readers. I suggest using plain language such as saying that the parts of the skeleton which have been found are...
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opting to leave it at Homo sp." Homo sp. needs explaining and linking.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014, 50 footprints dating to between 1.2 million and 800,000 years ago were discovered in Happisburgh, England, which could potentially be attributed to an H. antecessor group given it is the only species identified during that time in Western Europe." You cover the footprints extensively, but surely in that case you need to cover the Happisburgh stone tools as well. Are they the same as the antecessor tools?
I wasn't sure where to draw the line in the sand, because similar stone tools were manufactured across Western Europe (as mentioned in the text) which conceivably were also manufactured by H. antecessor given chronology, but I can't give a detailed writeup about every million year old Western European stone tool Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fluvially deposited fossils (dragged in by water)" Fluvial does not mean any water, it means related to a stream or river.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESR should be linked.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that two teeth in TD6 were dated palaeomagnetically after 780,000 years ago and then TD6 itself to before 780,000 years ago. This is presumably possible if the teeth were brought in by debris flow, but the list of dates in this paragraph does not tell us anything useful without giving some context.
In 1999, it was dated to sometime before 780,000 years ago, and in 2013 it was also dated to before 730,000 years ago but further constrained to after 930,000 years ago Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find the paragraph starting "In 1999, two ungulate teeth from TD6 were dated" confusing. It would be easier for readers to follow if you left out findings which are no longer considered valid. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made it a bulleted list like I did in Solo Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The face of H. antecessor is conspicuously more similar to that of modern humans than to other archaic groups, so in their original description, Castro and colleagues classified it as the last common ancestor between modern humans and Neanderthals" In the lead, you imply that the face of antecessor was more similar to moderns than Neanderthals, which seems inconsistent with being the common ancestor based on face morphology. Also what does "between" mean here? Do you mean "of"?
I mean it wasn't exactly the same face as modern humans, there were still several archaic features as detailed later on. I believe the idea was the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals should have a largely unspecialized face, not leaning too far to one side or the other, but Neanderthals align more closely with H. heidelbergensis than modern humans and vice versa considering the Neanderthal face is quite different from the modern face Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest changing "between" to "of". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, Castro and colleagues conceded that H. antecessor may or may not be a modern human ancestor, although if not probably split quite shortly before the modern human/Neanderthal split." Maybe "In 2017, Castro and colleagues conceded that H. antecessor may or may not be a modern human ancestor, although if it was not then it probably split quite shortly before the modern human/Neanderthal split."
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ATD6-69 is strikingly similar to modern humans (as well as East Asian Middle Pleistocene archaic humans) as opposed to West Eurasian or African Middle Pleistocene archaic humans or Neanderthals, although African Middle Pleistocene humans (the direct ancestors of modern humans) would later evolve this anatomy." I do not understand what you are saying here.
African Middle Pleistocene archaic humans retained an archaic face for a while (like Homo rhodesiensis, but since they're the ancestors of modern humans, some populations would eventually evolve a modern face by 300,000 years ago during the Middle Pleistocene Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add by convergent evolution for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed that last part, it wasn't really adding much anyways Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is exceptional as this bone is rarely ever discovered for archaic humans". I would leave out the word "ever" as it does not say anything.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shoulder blade is similar to all Homo with a general human body plan," What does "with a general body plan" mean here?
as opposed to Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis which had general australopithecine body plans Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "typical body plan" would be clearer. "general" is vague. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The medial (toward the midline) and lateral (toward the sides) facets for the knee joint are roughly the same size in ATD6-56". Same size as what?
clarified, as each other Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which may be related to how H. antecessor transmitted body weight". I do not know what transmitted body weight means here. Please clarify.
I changed it to walked Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the relation is true, H. antecessor had a prolonged childhood, a characteristic of modern humans in which significant cognitive development takes place." It is interesting that prolonged childhood came so early. There is nothing about brain size in the article unless I missed it. If no information on brain size is available due to lack of suitable fossils, perhaps worth spelling this out.
I can add that the measurements of the frontal bone ATD6-15 are notably bigger than some H. erectus specimens whose brain volumes are estimated at less than 1,000 cc Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have started making the amendment and stopped in the middle of a sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consequently, they are postulated to represent the ancestor of the Acheulean industry, wherein these and several other techniques would evolve further predominantly in sites across Western Eurasia and Africa." The source does not say this. It says "might have". This is more cautious than postulating. It says European Acheulean, not Acheulean generally, and it does not mention Eurasia and Africa. I would leave out the sentence as too speculative in view of the gap of a million years, but this is just a personal view.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to remove the statement from the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing the lead says now is "This industry has some similarities with the more complex Acheulean industry" and then a small gloss for the Acheulean "which later became ubiquitous across Western Eurasia and Africa" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where "which later became ubiquitous across Western Eurasia and Africa" is supported in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This suggests they were butchering humans for nutritional purposes (presumably under dire circumstances)". The comment that cannibalism was only under dire circumstances seems contradicted by the statement that homo is the second most common species showing evidence of butchering.
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • "There is no evidence they were using fire, and they consequently only inhabited inland Iberia during warm periods": this is in the lead, and is more definite than the body. I think this should say something like "There is no evidence they were using fire, so they probably only inhabited inland Iberia during warm periods".
    Well we can demonstrate occupation sequences coincide with warm periods, hence "Human occupation seems to have occurred in waves corresponding to timespans featuring a warm, humid savanna habitat", but the part I believe you're references only remains unsure about what they did in cold periods, hence "presumably retreating to the coast otherwise" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm concerned about is just the sentence's structure, not the assertion. The currrent sentence in the lead says that because there is no evidence they used fire, we deduce they only went inland in warm periods. The second part can't be unconditional if the first part is conditional. It would be too long-winded to say "There is no evidence they were using fire, and if they were not using fire they probably only inhabited inland Iberia during warm periods"; I was proposing a shorter sentence structure that avoids the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
changed consequently to similarly Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A MoS issue; you are using spaced em dashes. I like spaced em dashes, but the MoS only permits spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manufacturing simple pebbles": would read more naturally as "manufacturing simple stone tools".
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph beginning "Human occupation seems to have occurred", is the intended structure that the first two sentences are an assertion that is supported by the remaining sentences? That connection isn't explicitly drawn, and you don't say that the time periods into which the dating methods have constrained the finds correspond to "a warm, humid savanna habitat".
    I start off by saying proposed dates correspond to a savanna habitat, then say what the proposed dates are. Otherwise I'd have to repeat after every date "this also corresponds to a warm, humid savanna habitat" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it can be done more economically than that, and it would be kind to readers who don't see those don't ranges and immediately think ah, yes, MIS 19. How about starting that paragraph "Dates obtained from the human fossils or from their context have been shown to correspond to transitions from cool glacial to warm interglacial periods, after the climate warmed and before the forests could expand to dominate the landscape, with a warm humid savannah habitat (although the riversides likely supported woodlands). This implies that the human occupation came in waves, corresponding to these climatic periods. For example, in 1999, two ungulate teeth..." and you don't need to repeat "for example" before each sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the end of the par Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'usually classified as Homo ergaster [=? Homo erectus], originally "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus"': I think this is too compressed for a Wikipedia article. How about a footnote where you can devote a few more words to explaining this?
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the thickness of enamel and the proportion of the tooth covered by the gums are conspicuously variable to a degree on par between the males and females of modern humans and many other apes": I can't parse this. Does it mean that the amount by which those two elements vary is the same in the fossils as in modern humans and many other apes, with the variable presumably being similarly bimodal, since otherwise there's no reason to mention the sexes? From the following sentence I think that must be right, but it could be more clearly phrased.
    The average enamel and gum thickness are different between males and females of a lot of animals are different. The degree to which these differ in H. antecessor, is the same as the degree to which these differ in modern humans and many ape species Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's clearer than what's in the article. How about "Based on two canine teeth (ATD6- 69 and ATD6-13), the thickness of enamel and the proportion of the tooth covered by the gums vary to same degree as for males and females of modern humans and many other apes, so this may be due to sexual dimorphism, with females having smaller teeth, relatively thicker enamel, and smaller proportion of gum coverage." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stature estimates are roughly consistent with those for H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, and Neanderthals": since the stature estimates are for H. antecessor, presumably this should either read "Stature estimates for H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, and Neanderthals are roughly consistent with each other", or "Stature estimates for H. antecessor are roughly consistent with those for H. heidelbergensis and Neanderthals".
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking "vastus" to [vastus muscles].
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article in British or American English, or some other variation? I see "savanna", which as far as I know is only AmEng, and "standardisation", which is definitely not AmEng.
    British Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is largely unclear if these early European sites would evolve into the European Acheulean industry independently from African counterparts, or if the Acheulean was brought up from Africa and diffused across Europe." I don't think "largely" adds anything, and why "would evolve" instead of just "evolved"?
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they are badly preserved as the area was also used by hyenas as a latrine": why would this affect stone tools?
    urine is a corrosive acid Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have realized that, but if I miss it other readers may. Could we make this "but they are badly preserved as the area was also used by hyenas as a latrine, exposing them to the corrosive acid in urine"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you using "the" before several of the animals recorded at Sima del Elefante? To indicate that these are the same species as found at Gran Dolina? If so I would suggest rephrasing, perhaps like this: "The Sima del Elefante site records many of the same species found at Gran Dolina, including fallow deer, bush-antlered deer,..." It reads oddly with the "the"s in the list.
    because I say things like "the extinct horse Equus stenonis" so I should also be consistent with definite articles and say "the wild boar" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the list in the paragraph starting "The Sima del Elefante site records", not the list in the paragraph above, which is fine. I think this second list can be rephrased; I see you want to make reference to the first list, but this isn't a transparent way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitive articles serve a function, "records the fallow deer, the bush-antlered deer, rhinos" here "rhinos" is lacking a definitive because it's not referencing a specific rhino species, but an or multiple indeterminate species of rhino(s), in contrast to the aforementioned species of fallow deer Dama vallonetensi as opposed to some unspecified species of fallow deer in the genus Dama Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which historically have been used for their medicinal properties more than satiating hunger considering how little flesh these berries provide": suggest "in historical times have been used..." to make it clear this is a comparison with non-archaic human behaviour, and "satiating hunger because these berries provide very little flesh" as more direct.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not everything above is fixed the way I would fix it, but the differences that remain are stylistic, not substantive. I think the article is FA standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

edit

Comments from Edwininlondon

edit

Although I find the evolution of Homo fascinating, I am no expert and can only comment on prose:

  • a productive archaeological site, --> I would remove this to keep first sentence of the lead to the point
someone earlier said I should add that in Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of MOS:FIRST is different. I agree it is good to have this detail in the lead, just not in the first sentence. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • hence, the name --> comma really needed?
"hence" is a dependent clause so yeah Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • formally described --> may I suggest you include formally in the link? Makes it a bit more obvious where the link points to
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • modern humans --> link
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the more conventional H. heidelbergensis --> I wonder if the lead would be more accessible if H. was simply spelled out
that's pretty unconventional Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • H. antecessor has since been reinterpreted as an offshoot, although probably one branching off just before the modern human-Neanderthal split. --> a bit cryptic for me this offshoot. Of what?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brain volume could have been 1,000 cc --> how does this compare with sapiens?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This industry has some similarities with the more complex Acheulean industry, an industry --> repetition
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • archaeologist Francisco Jordá Cerdá --> link archaeologist
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • palaeontologist --> link
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • field seasons from 2003 to 2007 --> plural here seems fine but why singular season for "first field season, 1994–1996"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • opting to leave it at Homo sp. --> any updates since 2011?
no Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, the stone tool --> Additionally can be removed
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the only species identified during that time --> the only homo species?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dating attempt of H. antecessor remains are --> attempts?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Age and taphonomy --> taphonomy only appears as section header, which is fine normally but I have no idea what it means. Could it be used somewhere in line and then linked?
  • Electron spin resonance dating (ESR) --> Electron Spin Resonance dating (ESR)
why caps? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was under the impression that we handled acronyms with caps, but a little search led to MOS:CAPSACRS which says what you have is fine and what I wanted is wrong. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • usually classified as Homo ergaster [=? Homo erectus] --> is that ? a mistake or meant to be there? it looks odd
it's supposed to be there, as in, "maybe equals?" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • modern human/Neanderthal split --> why use a /?
it's a split and a slash is used to divide, as opposed to a hyphen which conjoins, and a dash which indicates a range. Looks like someone earlier changed it to a hyphen in the lead for some reason Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SLASH says "Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash". Edwininlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how" and then it gives an example which isn't relevant to here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lingual, or tongue, side --> do we lose anything if we just say "the tongue side"?
it's nice to have the actual term there Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • first use of palaeoanthropologist should be linked
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption Excavation of the Gran Dolina in 2012 --> link Gran Dolina (to help the picture scanners)
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption The mandible ATE9-1 --> link mandible
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris Stringer Caption --> what I don't get is where H. ergaster is in the diagram. Is it just below the erectus on the right?
it would be the erectus at the bottom as opposed to the two erectus branches which are supposed to represent mainland East Asian and Island Southeast Asian erectus Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption Map of Gran Dolina and Western European sites --> link Acheulean
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption H. antecessor may have moved along the Ebro river highlighted above (the Sierra de Atapuerca --> link Sierra de Atapuerca
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Trinchera_Atapuerca2.jpg does not really work without the user clicking on it to enlarge as none of the labels 1 2 3 4 are readable.
I don't know what I can do about that. The image would have to be ridiculously big to see the tiny white numbers Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new version with bigger labels and more contrast. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find. Interesting read. Thank you for bringing it here at FAC. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

edit

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • "from 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago". I see this claim in the body regarding footprints, but it is more qualified there - is the simple statement here supported by sources?
The 1.2 date is the Sima del Elefante site, and 0.8 is rounding up 0.77 for Gran Dolina, which are mentioned in the bulleted list of dating attempts in Age and taphonomy Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first fossils were found in the Gran Dolina cave in 1994". Text mentions other archaic human remains found there much earlier - were those determined not to be this species?
The Sima de los Huesos hominins are classified into H. heidelergensis with strong affinities to Neanderthals, and are much younger than the Gran Dolina Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no intact braincase has been discovered" - don't see this claim in text?
A bit less direct in the text, in cannibalism I have "There are no complete skulls, elements from the face and back of the skull are usually percussed"
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |URL=
I don't understand Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you're already linking to a particular site using an identifier like PMC, S2CID, etc, you should not repeat that using the URL parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about s2cid. Are there anymore I have to check? I'm not too familiar with these kinds of identifiers Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PMC/PMID. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I checked all the pmc's, and just the pmid's alone don't link to the full article, only the abstract Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21 is missing language.
it's in English Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sourcing issue, but also noted in passing that some style editing is needed here - eg hyphenation of compounds. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat, more needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? The hyphens seem fine to me Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "20–25 year old" - the dash is correct but hyphens are missing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally use hyphens like that, but done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, any update on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Homo_antecessor/archive2&oldid=1112569476"