Talk:Forensic anthropology/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 22:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am working on this now, should have some comments for you in just a bit. delldot  &nabla;.  22:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking on the review. I will be here for any questions and/or updates. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

An interesting and informative article! A lot of good work has gone into it. I will try to suppress my tendency to be an unbearably hardass reviewer but I do have some concerns about overall organization and some thoughts about areas that could use fleshing out. Hopefully it won't be too much work to address though.


 * The lead needs expansion. See WP:LEAD. I would usually aim for 2-4 paragraphs. As a rule of thumb I try to include something from each section (e.g. history), although you wouldn't want to do that with the notable people section. That way you summarize the article.
 * Ok. I will work on this tonight.
 * Lead has been expanded to include parts on history and education. Let me know if that is alright.


 * I think the history section should come after the applications sections. That way we know more about what the practice is and what it entails before we hear about who invented it.  I don't want you to feel you have to make this change if you disagree, but let's discuss it.
 * Personally, I feel like you should read the background before you read how something is applied. That way you know the amount of work that went into the creation of those formulas and methods.  If it wasn't for Hooton and the eugenics movement we would not have the information we do on skeletal dimorphisms.  If it wasn't for Todd and his collection of skeletons forensic anthropology would have been set back many years.  I feel like the history feeds into the rest of article which is why I put it directly after the lead.


 * I think the Today section that is now in history should be the first section after the lead (and should be renamed to avoid reusing the article title). Maybe it could go under applications, since it mostly talks about where it is used (i.e. applied).
 * I was trying to use that section as a segue into the application section which is why it contains more application focused information than the previous history sections. I am at a loss as to an alternative name.  I thought about "Modernization" but that doesn't really fit with the section.  Any thoughts?
 * Ok, so new idea: what if we keep the hx section before the formulas and methods, but put the modern uses section before history (possibly renamed modern applications or something). Then we could keep ‘Methods’ after 'History'.  I think it would be an easy transition from hx to the modern formulas since, as you suggest, the inheritance is clear. I do think when and why the practice is used should go near the front.  So then it would be 1. Lead 2. Applications (or 'Modern uses') 3. History 4. Methods.  What do you think?  delldot   &nabla;.  18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I tested it and I like it so I reorganized the sections and expanded the Modern uses section. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I have no complaints. I think the transition is fine.  delldot   &nabla;.  00:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to see more info in application (or in what is now the today section) about where and why this practice is used. What did the anthropologists specifically do in these mass murders and plane crashes? Why were their services needed?  What is it about forensic anthropology that makes it needed in these situations?  Are there other examples of its use?  How often is it used in regular murder or other investigations?  At what point do anthropologists become involved?  What are the determinations or identifications in aid of?
 * I could split off the today subsection into its own section and add to it. Their services were called for when the remains are unrecognizable.  In plane crashes the flesh is usually vaporized or so badly mangled that normal identification is impossible.  In cases of genocide, the investigations usually occur so long after the actual event that the remains are skeletonized.  For example, the Srebenica Massacre in the picture occurred in 1995 but that grave was not excavated until 2007.  There are other cases of its use but I just picked a few to make my point.  As for regular murders it really depends.  If the body is found quickly and can be identified there really isn't anything for anthropologists to do and the identification is left to the medical examiner.  It all depends on the condition of the remains.
 * This is all great info, I'd love to see all of this mentioned. I can see now that the article did mention some of it but it's much clearer now that you've explained it this way so I think fleshing that out in the article would help.  delldot   &nabla;.  18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I put it in the new Modern uses section. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. delldot   &nabla;.  00:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The info in the application section is all about specifics of the practices. Is application the right word for this?  Maybe the application section should talk about cases where the practice is used, and this could be renamed "practices" or some such.  I'm not sure about this, do you have any ideas?
 * I named it application since those techniques showed how forensic anthropology was applied to a set of remains. Perhaps methods is a more appropriate word? I could have a specific/notable cases section but that would end up repeating a lot of the article.
 * I changed the section name to methods as that more accurately describes the information there.
 * I think that's a fantastic idea. delldot   &nabla;.  18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I could not make any sense of this sentence: This is due to the scale of which skeletal differences between the sexes exists in.  Can you clarify?
 * Wow, can't believe I missed that sentence after reading through this article over a dozen times. I have removed that line and added to the previous one.  It now says "It is important for forensic anthropologists to take into account all available markers in the determination of sex due to the differences that can occur between individuals of the same sex."
 * Great. delldot   &nabla;.  18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The history section discusses the Korean War like it took place in the 40's. Can you make sense of this?
 * Bad phrasing on my part. It made sense in my head. I split the sentences so it now reads "This period saw the first official use of anthropologists by federal agencies including the FBI.  During the 1950s the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps employed forensic anthropologists in the identification of war casualties during the Korean War."
 * What about these two sentences: The sudden influx of available skeletons for anthropologists to study, whose identities were eventually confirmed, allowed for the creation of more accurate formulas for the identification of sex, age,[8] and stature[9]based solely on skeletal characteristics. These formulas, developed in the 1940s, are still in use today. It sounds like the methods were developed as the result of all the new skeletons, but that was not till the 50s.  Does it mean the methods had been developed earlier and just got a chance to be perfected during the war?  Maybe if so, These formulas, which had been developed in the 1940s and advanced by the war, are still in use today.  delldot   &nabla;.  18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You were correct. They were developed earlier and advanced by war. I have changed the sentence to the following These formulas, developed in the 1940s and refined by war, are still in use by modern forensic anthropologists. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Cultural references section has a single reference in a single sentence. My expectation is that this is not going to be possible to expand into a whole section with multiple non-trivial references.  So let's incorporate the info into another section and ditch this header.  One idea is to add it as a note to the line about Kathy Reichs, who the character is based off of (although no one else in that section has a byline).
 * That section was already there when I started expanding the article and I had my doubts about keeping it. The only reason I did was because Bones is a very well known show and most of the information the general population knows about forensics is gleaned from television.  However, I would not be opposed to having a line next to Reichs regarding her role in the creation of the show and the removal of that section.
 * Great, or alternately incorporate it elsewhere e.g. in 'Modern uses', wherever it fits naturally. I agree that the show merits a mention.  delldot   &nabla;.  18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to include Bones in the Modern uses section since that show is actually really inaccurate (like most CSI programs). If anything I would feel comfortable putting a note next to Reichs or leaving it where it is. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think incorporating it next to Reichs is better, otherwise the stupid show gets its own section. One thought might be to put a little blurb next to some of the other names in the list as well to justify their inclusion.  That way Reichs is not the only one.  delldot   &nabla;.  00:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to do that then. Bass is known for the creation of the first body farm, Burns is known for her work in genocide cases, etc.


 * Throughout the article I think you could stand to go through and copy edit with a view toward eliminating excessive unnecessary wording. e.g. I went through and removed a lot of instances of "the individual" where the sentence was equally clear with this eliminated.
 * Thank you for your copyedits. I will go through and eliminate any extra wording.


 * All photos look like they check out, so that's good.


 * I think it's sufficiently referenced, although I'm assuming in some cases where an unreferenced sentence is followed by a referenced one that the reference covers both. I would recommend putting a reference at the end of each sentence, since the material could get rearranged (e.g. the referenced sentence could get removed or moved). That way there's no doubt you have a reference.
 * You assumed correctly. I didn't want to cite each sentence as I felt like that would be citation overload and it was drilled into my head in school that you just don't do that in scientific articles.  However, I do understand your point and I will add citations to the places that need them.
 * Cool, I definitely err on the side of overload on WP!  delldot   &nabla;.  18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That is what I have for now! Let's continue the discussion as work progresses on the article. Thanks for all your hard work so far Stabila711! delldot  &nabla;.  22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking this on. I will start working on the changes tonight.  As to you being a "hardass" I welcome that.  I am used to a panel of peer reviewers scrutinizing my every sentence and it always makes the article better.  I would rather have a hardass review and end up with a great article than not. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Edited to include updates. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks for all the good work! delldot   &nabla;.  18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Section break
This is super close, I'm just trying to think of more questions to be sure the comprehensiveness standard is met. Here are some examples, but it may not make sense to answer them all. Just see if you think they are worth addressing.
 * In methods, what about a person's build? can you tell a person's weight from their skeleton?
 * Not really. Weight is decided by muscle and fat not bones. You could make a best guess based on the average weight for a person's height and age but that is about it.  The only exception is for severely obese people.  The weight on the bones would leave compression markers.
 * Does an anthro ever work with teeth, or would that fall solely to a dentist?
 * Only for people who died under the age of 21 (ish). If the remains are that of a child their age can be estimated based on which teeth have erupted but past that any opinions are left up to forensic dentists.


 * Do anthers work with anything other than bones? I think jewelry was mentioned somewhere iirc.  It might be worth it to mention early in the article, "here are all the things anthros look at: bones, jewelry..." or if it's strictly bones that could be clarified in the lead.
 * Personal items are useful in genocide investigations. During the Rwandan Genocide investigation, tables were laid out with the personal items found in the mass graves.  Family members were asked to look through them for items they recognized.  If they recognized an item the bones associated with it could be returned to the right family.


 * Does DNA merit a mention? Would forensic anthropologists ever use it, or would that fall to another member of the team? Would its presence mean the forensic anthro is not needed, or would their work supplement DNA analysis?
 * Anthropologists might extract bone marrow if it is present but DNA examination past that is left to DNA specialists. The way the legal system is set up is that expert witnesses can only be qualified as an expert in a narrow field.  So anthropologists would only be able to speak about anthropology while DNA analysts would only be able to speak about DNA.
 * Is identifying sex, stature, etc solely in aid of identifying the individual, or are there other reasons to look for this info?
 * Pretty much. The only thing that anthropologists examine that might be useful in other areas of the investigation is trauma markers.  For example, bullet holes could help determine the direction the person was shot.  Back of the head vs forehead, see File:Illustration of beveling by a bullet on a bone (JFK exhibit F-61).gif.


 * I've just been reading a book called A Missing Plane in which she describes bagging and labeling remains based on where they were dug up; "segregating" individuals when a bunch of people's remains have gotten mixed up; figuring out whose bones are whose by how they fit together, and matching skeletons with dental and military physical records.  Might these merit mention in methods? Would the military use be good to mention in Modern uses (i.e. making sure families get the right bones to bury), or is that too rare of a case?
 * Cases where there are a large number of unidentifiable bodies are more associated with genocide than the military (at least today). Like mentioned above with the table full of personal items found in mass graves.  The military usually has it down to a science when it comes to the collection of the dead and the return of the remains to their family.  Frankly, as of today it is much more likely that you would get someone else's ashes from a local crematorium than the wrong remains from the military.  As to dental records that is not in the anthropologists area of expertise.  If they require a dental match it would fall to a forensic dentist.

Feel free to ignore these if you don't think they will add to the article. delldot  &nabla;.  00:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Okay....I don't want to step on anyone's toes here. Perhaps someone can create a list article which has notable forensic anthropologists and just link to that? Least that way this article won't be a battleground to determine who is and who isn't notable....just a thought. If you feel we are better off not listing individuals here I'm fine with that.--MONGO 23:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded to questions. Also, I am going to do a little blurb next to the notable anthropologists and eliminate the cultural references section. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I tried it and I just don't like how it rendered in preview mode. There are also various levels to notability in that list.  Some of them founded forensic anthropology societies (Sue Black, Fredy Peccerelli) while others are notable for their work.  Hugh Berryman is recognized as one of the leading experts in blunt force trauma.  Jane Buikstra is known for her work in forensic archaeology.  Then there is Karen Burns who was involved in genocide investigations.  I am actually debating on removing the section entirely.  It doesn't really add anything to the article.  It is just a list of names.  Is it common to include "notable people" sections in articles? --Stabila711 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually hate notable people sections because they get added to so haphazardly and it's not really informative if it's just a list of names with no context, but I didn't say anything about this one because at least each person has a blue link and a mention of forensic anthropology in the lead of their article. I do think it would be an improvement to incorporate these people into the history section (or elsewhere) if they're noteworthy enough and drop those who are not, but it's up to you.   delldot   &nabla;.  16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I ended up removing it and incorporating Kathy Reichs next to Bones with a reference. I am starting to view notable people sections as more subjective than should be allowed on an encyclopedia.  Who gets included?  Who gets left off?  What is the level of notability required?
 * Anyways, what do I still have to do? --Stabila711 (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored the section. I could see making sure each is reffed but Forensic Anthropologists are a rare breed so its unlikely the list will ever overwhelm the article.--MONGO 22:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, but now there is still the one-liner cultural references section. Back to plan A, incorporate it with Reichs?  My other suggestions for the notables section would be to have birth dates for all of them (it's currently inconsistent), and potentially have a blurb for each person.  But I wouldn't hold up promotion based on that.   delldot   &nabla;.  23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I wasn't stressed about it, I was mainly concerned about the next section, which I don't think will be hard to incorporate into it. I doubt anyone will battle over notable forensic anthropologists but anything's possible! delldot   &nabla;.  00:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am putting the information into a table. It looks much better and I can add a short blurb on each person regarding why they are notable.  I should have it done soon and then I can remove the cultural references section. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done with the table and the blurbs. I also added a ref for each one.  I did remove a few people since I couldn't find published sources on why they were notable. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a neat solution, I like it. You might consider adding a dates column (birth? Active during? Not sure.) but up to you.  Really amazing work on this article, promoting now. [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]  delldot   &nabla;.  03:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks! --Stabila711 (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)