Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Taung Child

Taung Child

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2020 at 17:23:24 (UTC)

Original – Taung Child, the first Australopithecus found.
File page description [1]: "Cast in three parts: endocranium, face and mandible, of a 2.1 million year old Australopithecus africanus specimen so-called Taung child, discovered in South Africa."

Reason: Taung Child is the fossilised skull of the first Australopithecus africanus discovered in 1924. The discovery established a link in the understanding of human evolution. The image is used in several articles, it shows the endocast of the skull at the University of the Witwatersrand (Evolutionary Studies Institute), South Africa.
Articles in which this image appears: Taung Child, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus, Endocast, Archaeology
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator: Archaeodontosaurus

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Is this the actual skull, or a cast of it? The text doesn't clarify. I'm not talking of the endocast of the brain cavity, but of the bones. If it's not a photo of the real fossil, but of a cast made from it, then EV is lower. --Janke | Talk 22:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit hairy! You can read the discoverer Raymond Dart's description at this link. The original finding (or discovery) has two parts: 1- a naturally formed endocast of the brain (endocranium, in human anatomy, the outer layer of the brain), and 2- a rock fused to the facial and jawbone (mandible), the fused rock was then removed and the facial and jawbone revealed. The originals are at the University of the Witwatersrand, and that's where this photograph was captured. Whether the photographed piece is the original 2 million year old find, or a copy of it cast for display purposes, I do not know. If I was to assume, I would assume it's a replica, given the photographer describes it as "cast in three parts", and given the original is 2M years old. In either case, given that the photographed item (original or replica) is displayed by the institution that houses the original finding, it should be sufficient for EV purposes. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC) . . . Looking through this source and enlarging some of the photographs, I am pretty confident the nom image is of a replica, not the original fossil. Bammesk (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought by looking closely at the photo; the teeth seem to be the same "part" as the skull, which is darkened by painting or other method. Let's see what people think, first - if overwhelmingly positive, I'll concur... --Janke | Talk 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to support, but it'd be nice to have it properly documented. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 00:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, properly documented where? on the article page, or on the file page? Also documented in what respect? do you mean documenting the details of the discovered fossil, or details of the item photographed (i.e. it being a replica). Anyway, it would need a renomination. Bammesk (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Taung child page. But, aye. PRobably best to renominate in a week or so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 02:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]