User:ACebeiro/Primate archaeology/Phoeb.mh Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ACebeiro


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ACebeiro/Primate archaeology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead section is very thorough, however the introductory sentence could include more of the "why". You mention that it involves research foci from both primatology and archaeology, but maybe mention briefly what the driving questions are and the field's reason for existence. I'm not sure what you mean by "archaeologically invisible behaviors", you could include an example or soften the word choice because you're implying that whatever you're talking about is impossible to see through archaeology (and maybe it is, but I'm not sure yet what you are referring to). I agree with the note at the end of the lead section that you should also mention captive studies as a main research focus. Overall, since primate archaeology is new and people don't know much about it I would mention more specific examples (which will be accompanied by more citations) in this section.

Content

In the origins section, when you mention Piltdown man I would refer to it as a hoax within that sentence in case your readers are not familiar with the story.

I agree with the note in the section about Abang that you should explain why primates in captivity are not analogous to wild primates in terms of tool production.

I agree with changing the word choice about Louis Leakey away from "notorious". I would suggest "notable".

Is there a reason why Jane Goodall's name isn't linked to her page and the other two are? I would add a link there. There also seems to be a page for The Trimates if you want to include that. Overall, certain overlying themes that you mention throughout the article could use more links to their existing wikipedia pages.

I know there isn't a page for termite fishing, so when you mention it I would try and explain briefly what it means or include a picture.

Tone and Balance

"Archaeological excavation techniques can be time consuming and costly. Furthermore, excavations are very invasive given that once you excavate something you will not be able to put it back into its original state . " I would just check that second-person is okay to use on Wikipedia- I'm not completely sure.

Sources and References

Since you have 142 sources, your article is definitely credible! I would try and just cite a little more in the lead section, bringing in specific examples of what we will read about in your article. You also include Tennis 2023, which is good because it shows that your page is up to date with the latest publications in the field.

Organization

You clearly built the outline of this article carefully because it is organized quite well. I do see a couple typos- for instance, in the lead section where it says "Overall, primate archaeology helps too understand how early hominins used material culture ", change "too" to "us", or "researchers", etc.

I also see a couple grammatical errors, for instance the sentence "Decades later, Oldupai was focus of two more major findings" is missing "the" in front of "focus". It would be worth a deep scan through the article to make sure there aren't any more. Another one I see is in "Primate archaeology has the advantage of being able to do present-day surface surveys because they study extant non-human primate behavior and their tools ". Since "primate archaeology" is singular, change "they" to either be "it" or introduce researchers as the subjects into the sentence.

Images and Media

I like the pictures! I think they're appropriate for each section and not overbearing. I know that in your own research you have some cool GIFs showing flaking processes. I wonder if it would be possible to get something like that in this article.

For New Articles Only

Your article is notable- it has both primary and secondary sources. In this context, I think primary sources are actual experiments and secondary sources are papers that are more interpretative. For example, Haslam et al., 2009 is a good secondary source because it is describing the field without introducing new data.

The list of sources is quite exhaustive so I wouldn't worry about that. You have sources spanning from 1871 (Darwin) to 2023 (Tennie), so the entire history of the field is covered.

You have a good sense of organization, and the sections and subsections are well thought out.

I would include more links to other articles. I mentioned some that I would link above, but there can be more. Since it's a new article and a relatively new field of research, this will help integrate the article into Wikipedia and give readers important context about what you are talking about.

Overall Impressions

This is a very thorough and well-fleshed out article for having started it from scratch. I would restructure the lead section to better emphasize what the field looks at and what the research goals are. I would also explain some concepts that seem straightforward to us (such as termite fishing) but that readers with no background in primatology may not be familiar with, especially if the concept doesn't have its own page that they can be redirected to.