Wikipedia:Peer review/Australopithecus sediba/archive1

Australopithecus sediba


Australopithecus sediba is a possible (but possibly not) human ancestor from South Africa, known from 2 skeletons dating to about 2 million years ago. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to FA as the first featured hominin article, and the 2nd featured great ape article (after Orangutan)

Thanks,  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) And please add the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review!  Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Footlessmouse

 * Hi, this is outside my area of expertise, but since you are looking to nominate for FA, I figured I would throw in some notes. I have to say for the most part it looks great! More notes below Footlessmouse (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Taphonomy section: Sufficient citations are not provided. For instance, the first sentence reads "The cave networks around Malapa comprise long, interconnected cave openings within a 500 m × 100 m (1,640 ft × 330 ft) area." Figures are given without citations, when describing in detail a system which is not the main topic. I believe this is a clear fail of WP:Verifiability and should be corrected prior to FA nomination. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the ref is at the end of the paragraph  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 05:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Image sandwiching please see MOS:SANDWICH. It is normally easiest to place all images on the right hand side of the article. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would cause WP:STACKING  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 05:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources There is one web source that was taken offline, but probably serves as reliable enough for the statement it is referencing. However, all thirty-seven other citations are made to journals. Are there no secondary sources that discuss them, for instance, a textbook? Just typing the name into link.springer.com and searching for the name in chapter text, I found these.

The first few are all different chapters for the same book, each available online at the links provided. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They don't add anything new, just sort of echo was Berger has continued saying about the species. I'll add it to further reading  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 05:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not an expert in this area, I only wanted to provide notes on what may cause the article to fail FA nom. Overall I think it is great. Good luck! Footlessmouse (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for being the 1st to respond  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 05:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

 * MOS:SANDWICH everywhere.
 * It really depends on the width of your screen. It seems fine to me  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I look at three different screens. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was because I was on mobile view  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * MOS:CAPTION punctuation needed on this one, and why isn't the order of the wording in the caption the same as the order in the picture? MH1 (left), MH2 (right), and A. afarensis Lucy (centre). MH1 is 130 cm (4 ft 3 in) tall.
 * Further reading ... if used, should be alphabetical. Since FAs are expected to be comprehensive, need to know why those sources couldn't be used, or what they add that can't be included in article.
 * The first one is pure anatomical description (so like "The vertebral body bears ring apophyses and measures 14.9mm in maximum transverse diameter and 10.7mm DV at midline"), and the 2nd one is just Berger saying "As I said in my earlier studies..."  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Ditto for External links, review to see that all are necessary
 * They're good summaries, and the Catalogues seem to be doing fine in that section  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A total of 209 non-hominin fossils were recovered ... pls see these exercises and review throughout for prose redundancies (overall, a total of, in total, also, and the like):
 * User:Tony1/How to improve your writing
 * User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing
 * I have to do that because I'm not allowed to start a sentence with a number, and 209 is better to read than two hundred and nine  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentences can be recast. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you mean use passive voice?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As but one example, who recovered them? Archaelogists maybe?  Archaelogist (researchers, pathologists, whatever) recovered 38 phytoliths from two teeth from MH1, of which 15 are consistent with dicots, 9 monocots, and the other 14 indeterminate.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please review throughout for overuse of however.
 * Does 9 however's count as overuse?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I rarely encounter that many in well written articles, but you will need to check each one to see if they are all actually needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Should I replace half of them with nonetheless?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oddly informal way to start a para, not sure how to fix that though ... This could all indicate that Malapa Cave was a deathtrap,
 * Vary the prose ... Lower limbs, and Upper limbs start with the same, "Like other ... "
 * If I vary the prose it might sound like I'm purposefully making these 2 items sound different because they are supposed to be different, when in actually they are not  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:CITATION OVERKILL, are they all needed, or consider bundling? Alternatively, A. sediba could also represent a late-surviving morph or sister species of A. africanus unrelated to Homo, which would mean Homo-like traits evolved independently in A. sediba and Homo (homoplasy).[2][9][10][11][12]
 * That came up in GA because they said that I'm putting too much weight on a fringe opinion, so I had to stack it so it's clear it's not a fringe opinion  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you can bundle the citations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate bundling citations, because most readers generally assume 1 ref per footnote, not 5. Now it's just unorganized. It seems like a matter of personal preference because stacking looks fine to me  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a start; I haven't read the article because a) not my area, and b) the text sandwiching between images is visually very off-putting. Good luck! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Another redundancy, how is "present" needed? The present classification of australopithecines is in disarray.
 * Run the dup link checker ... for example, Upper limbs has humerus and shoulder blade each linked twice in one para, there may be more.

Comments from Esculenta

 * I'm having difficulty parsing the latter half of the following sentence: "The modern day olive colobus monkey may have had a similar diet to A. sediba (which markedly contrasts with typical early hominin diets), and appears to have similar patterns of facial-bone growth, which may indicate diverging resorptions and deposition patterns in A. sediba from other hominins reflects different jaw-loading patterns." Also, shouldn't "modern day" be hyphenated?
 * Grammar: "Animals may have been lured ..., and then fallen to their deaths."
 * Consider adding non-breaking spaces to short-form binomials to prevent unsightly line breaks.
 * Check usage of the word "which" throughout the article; many should be either replaced with "that", or should be preceded with a comma.
 * "It was also suggested" sounds weaselly. Esculenta (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)