Talk:Human/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 03:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• Kudos for taking this one. Are you stopping at GA or are you trying to get all the way to FA?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Just glossing over, 2 paragraphs in Life cycle are missing references   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Anatomy you keep comparing to chimpanzees which I don't think is really necessary, like "Another difference between women and chimpanzee females is that women go through the menopause" why don't you just say "women go through menopause, typically after x years"? And "Humans' brains are about three times bigger than in chimpanzees" why don't you just say "the average human brain capacity is x in men and y in women")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Article is overimaged. Things you could cut are Vitruvian Man in anatomy, Venus of Willendorf and two starved boys, the image of an adult man should be changed to someone a bit less decorated (it could be moved to Body culture), and the template Hominins seems kind of misleading (it looks like a progression from primitive to superior) so you should cut that too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• When talking about human evolution, you should use the most current sources; ref 56 from 1965 is too dated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• For the image in the taxobox, do you wanna instead make a collage of different people from different racial backgrounds or maybe just a group of people? Like, why Ahkan farmers? Why not Nixon or a San hunter like we use on Mammal?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 Thank you for your suggestions. I'll try to improve the article, and I think I'll stop at GA for now. TK421bsod (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Kind of strange how you refer to humans as "they", but on the other hand, using "we" feels strange. Maybe you could rearrange sentences to avoid "they" entirely, like instead of "Together with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, they are part of the family Hominidae" you could say, "Humans, together with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, make up the family Hominidae". Or you could try to get a consensus on the talk page (or check if they already reached one)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Intro to the lead is a bit too technical. The lead doesn't necessarily have to be structured like the article (like just because the Taxonomy section is first doesn't mean you have to talk about taxonomy first in the lead). Maybe you could talk about the world today to start out with?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, overall, you focus too heavily on comparing humans with animals.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Seeing some citation needed tags   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think the History section focuses way too much on paleo instead of actual history. I think human evolution should just be 1 concise subsection, and then you move onto Ancient history, maybe the Classical Age, the Middle Ages, and then the Post-industrial world   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Large chunks of the article lack references, and the Motivation and emotion section is completely devoid of them (which I've tagged). A lot of the references are improperly formatted.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Too much anatomy and evolutionary theories and not enough society, culture, and recorded history. Like, in Sexuality and love, you talk about only genitals and hormones instead of, say, marriage or parenthood

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   As suggested above, some pictures could be replaced. Also, in Sexuality and love, you use a picture of a mother kissing a baby next to a discussion on libido and the size of the human penis

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Large swathes of the article are unreferenced, and I see an original research tag, which qualify this article for an immediate failure. You are also not the primary author; in fact, you've only contributed about 0.1% of the text in the article. Content-wise, I think this article at present focuses much too heavily on evolution and anatomy as opposed to culture and society (it lacks a good balance). I appreciate your daring to tackle such a huge article, but there is still much expansion to be done before becoming a GA. I hope to see this article back here, but you will need to put in some work to make that happen. Happy editing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)