Talk:Homo rudolfensis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JurassicClassic767 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite interesting article to review and read. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section:

• "with some recommending the species actually belongs in the genus Australopithecus..." Sounds a bit wrong, maybe reword to: "with some recommending the species to actually belongs in the genus Australopithecus..."

"to actually in the genus Australopithecus" sounds strange   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 My apologies, I forgot to put belong within the gap. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• (some additional words might suit better): "and females around 150 cm (4 ft 11 in) and 51 kg (112 lb). Specimen KNM-ER 1470 had a brain volume of about 750 cc (46 cu in). Like other early Homo species, H. rudolfensis had large..."

added "around", KNM-ER 1470 is already identified earlier as a specimen so does not need to be prefixed by "Specimen"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Early Homo species exhibit marked brain growth..." Specifying it would be more understandable.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Research history:

• (unnecessary comma, better structured): "They were first assigned to a the species, habilis..."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• "KNM-ER 1470 was much larger than..." Specify? -> "Specimen KNM-ER 1470 was much larger than..."

unnecessary   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• (comma needed): "(but he used the genus Pithecanthropus, which was changed to Homo three years later by Groves)"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• (move comma): "she assigned it to H. rudolfensis and, because prepubescent male and female bones..." -> "she assigned it to H. rudolfensis, and because prepubescent male and female bones"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The rest of the section sits OK, so we'll move onto Anatomy once this is finished. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Anatomy:

• "U-shaped, which may indicate that these two morphs represent different species..."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• consider linking P. boisei in the Anatomy section, and removing its link in the Culture section

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The rest of the Anatomy section is well-structured/well-written, so no other changes need to be made. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Culture:

• (add comma after "meat"): "scavenging and monopolise fresh carcasses, or meat allowed the large and calorie-expensive ape..."

"or meat, allowed the large and calorie-expensive ape gut to decrease" wouldn't make any sense   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• consider removing the link of P. boisei in this section, and link it in the Anatomy section

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• "though it is not possible to definitively attribute the tools to a species as H. rudolfensis, H. habilis, and P. boisei are also well-known from the area." The sentence doesn't make sense if you add the last bit ("are also well-known from the area"). You can probably remove it, or a slight addition might suit well.

"though it is not possible to definitively attribute the tools to a species as H. rudolfensis, H. habilis, and P. boisei." is a sentence fragment   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It might be a correct statement, but it may confuse some readers. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the sentence fragment, and therefore I will consider keeping it. The one issue is that not all readers are able to quickly understand sentence fragments, and may somehow be a bit confusing, but other than that, I'd say that no more changes need to be made in the article for the review. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's irrelevant if we continue the discussion about the sentence fragment above. Therefore, after reading the whole article again, I'd say the result is: . Congratulations and good job! Now I guess I should start passing this then! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)