Wikipedia:Peer review/Aquatic ape hypothesis/archive1

Aquatic ape hypothesis
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone substantial rewriting over the last two months as a result of some discussion at WP:FTN, the talkpage, and elsewhere. The article was initially considered by myself and others to be overly promotional and in violation of WP:FRINGE, but it is my opinion now that much has improved. Still, it would be good to get outside opinions on the topic. Appreciated. Thanks, jps (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The subject is difficult for the reasons you hint at, and on the whole the article has converged on a correctly neutral text. I'm surprised, though, that all the images that I and others proposed have been removed. There seems to me no reason why the hypothesis should not be neutrally illustrated by the sorts of images suggested by February this year in the article, with suitably neutral captions ("Hardy suggested ..."), once tempers have cooled. The only current illustration is a marginally-relevant timeline which adds little to the article; I'd have thought we could do rather better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's hard to decide on good images mostly because a lot of them are arguably unconnected with the topic. We also have a picture of two skulls which seems a fair image as there is no argument about that. However, what other images would work here? Images of wading great apes, diving people, swimming babies, and the like are not particularly illustrative of the topic in the sense that they don't provide any meaningful exposition. Pictures that are directly connected to the topic would be things such as illustrations from Morgan's books, for example, maybe a picture of David Attenborough, etc. The problem with pictures of the evidence that AAH proponents support is that there is dispute over what actually is evidence. A picture of Elaine Morgan might be nice, and there was one included briefly, though now removed. Other ideas for what kinds of images you think would be appropriate would be appreciated, but when we got into the weeds we quickly found problems with most/all of the ones proposed. jps (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)