Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Human history/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Human history

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Hello everyone, I would like to know if this article is close to being ready for GA and FA, or if there are major issues that need to be addressed first. How is the overall structure and coverage? Are there major gaps? Feel free to nitpick and be as detailed as you like.

Thanks, Cerebellum (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I would like to see more coverage of Latin America and Africa in the Late Modern Period. That section currently does not talk about them much past becoming colonies and becoming independent. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! I have a book coming which should give me some insight on what to add. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big topic indeed. The article is well-sourced and the parts I checked are also well-written. I included some expansion ideas but I'm not sure how central they are. If you decide to nominate the article at some point, I would suggest making small steps and starting with a GA nomination first since there are many things that can go wrong with this type of broad article.
A few observations:
  • I didn't spot any unreferenced paragraphs or passages.
  • WP:EARWIG shows one potential copyright violation but this is due to quotes.
  • Is "human history" used in this context as a synonym of "world history"? If so, it might be good to state so.
Yes, there used to be a hatnote linking to World history (field), I've restored it. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article talks almost exclusively about the different periods in human history. Have you considered adding a section with some more general information about the field? Some ideas to consider: (I'm spitballing here, it might well be that implementing some or all of these ideas is not required and that the content covered is fine as it is)
    • How is human history studied, what methods and forms of evidence are used?
    • What disagreements are there (e.g. about periodization)
    • What importance does it have in relation to other fields, for example, how individuals and societies understand themselves in relation to it or how they use history to justify their agenda (things like irredentism)
    • If there were important changes in the historiography, that could be mentioned (e.g. if earlier historians used different periodizations, emphasized different events, had different timelines)
Most of those I am content to leave to history or historiography. It would be nice to have a section about periodization since we sneak ours in through the back door without justifying it, but I'm worried about excessive length since the article is already pushing 10,000 words. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the earliest named species is Homo habilis which evolved by 2.3 million years ago. should this be "evolved around 2.3 million years ago"? The same for H. erectus (the African variant is sometimes called H. ergaster) evolved by 2 million years ago.
Not done per comment by Joe Roe below. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, in some theories agriculture was the result of an increase in population add comma after "theories", I would use "according to some theories" instead of "in some theories".
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • was followed by unification of all the valley around 3100 BCE. add "the" before "unification"
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main articles: Axial Age, History of philosophy, Timeline of religion, and History of religion I'm not sure that "History of philosophy" and the following ones should be linked as under "Main articles". They could be linked as "See also"
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The expression "a number of" is used a few times. It could be replaced with "several"
  • but, by sharp contrast to the Mediterranean-European world replace "by" with "in"
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • was dominated by the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires that frequently replace "that" with "which" and add a comma before it
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The knowledge and skills of anicent Greece and replace "anicent" with "ancient"
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its collapse brought about political fragmention that replace "fragmention" with "fragmentation"
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English varient is not consistent, see "metre", "center", "neighbours", and "neighbors".
Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • led to global European presence in early modern period. add "the" before "early"
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reformation was an anti-clerical theological and social movement which resulted replace "which" with "that"
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • expanding prodigiously through technological advance and colonial conquest should this be "advances" instead of "advance"?
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • faster and using less labor than previously required. replace "and" with "while"
Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The foregoing historical periodization (classical, post-classical, early modern, and late modern periods) The periodization of the article does not use "classical" but "Prehistory" and "Ancient history". The periodization is not clearly presented in the foregoing text so this sentence could be confusing.
Revised. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phlsph7 (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Thank you very much for the review, it means a lot since I know you have your hands full with your FAC at the moment! I will implement your suggestions once the peer review closes. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for implementing the suggestions, it seems the article is getting into shape. Having a short look at the The Cambridge World History, it seems to cover roughly the same terrain as what is termed "Human history" here. I'm not sure which term is more common in the academic literature. In case you decide at some point to add something on methodology, periodizations, and the like, you could have a look at the first part of its first volume. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re. by 2.3 million years ago and by 2 million years ago, I think this is correct. By definition evolution doesn't occur instantaneously, and the fossil record can only tell us by which date we see specimens that are classified in that taxon. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest combining some of the short two/three sentence paragraphs. At the moment, some sections read disjointedly, when longer paragraphs would allow the article to flow better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, mostly done. More to do for the contemporary history section. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Human_history/archive1&oldid=1185847452"