User:Chakazul/sandbox

<!-- I'd like to make an assessment of the level of secondary/tertiary review covering each section, and the overall NPOV. Since I call myself a "two-third proponent" (would argue against both sides), bias is still inescapable. Comments are much appreciated.


 * Lemma 1: AAH as a whole is overwhelmingly rejected or ignored in the scientific community, supports are limited to laymen discussions and non-RS reviews.
 * Lemma 2: Some aspects of AAH, e.g. bipedalism, diet, diving, coastal living, have stimulated independent research, or are shown to be compatible with available evidence.
 * Lemma 3: The researched aspects have gathered RS reviews, mostly positive.
 * Lemma 4: Most critiques on AAH focus on the whole or its rejected parts, and rarely criticize the researched aspects.

Sections:
 * Lede - Rightly summed up Lemma 1.
 * History - Straight forward chronology.
 * Hardy/Morgan thesis - Most claims have minimum coverage due to lack of (positive) secondary reviews; claims matching Lemma 2 were moved to the last section.
 * Reactions - Followed Lemma 1, sourced with proper reviews.
 * Related research - Followed Lemma 2, 3. Not much criticism due to Lemma 4.
 * Wading bipedalism - Reviewed by Niemitz, as well as Attenborough (for works of Kuliukas et al.)
 * Nutrients - Reviewed positively in archaeology and anthropology    and received wide coverage in leading journals
 * Diving - Reviewed by Schagatay, Attenborough, and Langdon
 * Auditory exostosis, Vernix caseosa - Reviewed by Attenborough.

Overall: All sections should have been properly covered by secondary/tertiary reviews. The criticisms, as shown in a large proportion of anthropological reviews, and the supports, as stemmed from further developments reviewed by experts in archaeology, anthropology, physiology, and natural history, are in right proportions in the article, thus arguably maintain a NPOV in the article.

Suggestion of new article on Shore-based Diet Scenario
When reviewing the Nutrition subsection, it seems to me that the "Shore-based Diet Scenario" (most contents of the subsection) is notable enough to be a stand-alone WP article.

Compared to AAH proper, this topic alone has much more high quality RS (consider the whole special issue of Journal of Human Evolution), more reviews and critique-rebuttal cycles in peer-reviewed journals, and much wider acceptance and influence in the academics (particularly evolutionary anthropology and archaeology). Provided that sources reviewing or citing Shore-based Diet may not do the same to AAH, and vise versa, it's much easier for editors to evaluate sources and NPOV on the two topics separately.

Also, consider the separation as benefitial to both sides -- it could avoid removal of useful contents in the Nutrition subsection because they're not always directly related to AAH (I understand that everything is more strict for fringe topics), at the same time, it could avoid a false impression that success of Cunnane et al.'s works implies success of AAH, which is not necessarily the case (AAH will remain in oblivion if it gets no evidence in other claims). -->