Talk:Yuanmou Man/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Therapyisgood (talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• upper first incisors (V1519) not sure what this string of numbers mean, can you explain?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Do you have coordinates of where the incisors were found? A map of some kind would be beneficial to identify where they were found.

Should I put a map emphasizing Yuanmou County?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you find a map? Not a hangup if not. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• shaft in a layer just overlying Member 4 I'm not sure I follow. How can a layer overly anything else?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• dated the incisors to the Gilsa geomagnetic polarity event roughly 1.7 million years ago can you explain what the Gilsa geomagnetic polarity event was for those who don't know (like me)? or maybe just explain what a polarity event is.

paleomagnetic dating is finding which layers of the rock correspond to which chron (like in this image) similar to epochs. At the boundary of each chron, the magnetic polarity reverses. Sometimes there are short-lived reversals within each chron called a polarity subchron or polarity event. Still debated if the term "subchron" should completely replace "polarity event"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant in the article. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I know but how much explanation do you want? Like how do you want me to word it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Try a footnote. Being not familiar with the topic I'm not sure how to word it. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"...to the Gilsa geomagnetic polarity event (when the Earth's magnetic polarity reversed for a short interval) roughly..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• placed the area during the Olduvai subchron can you link subchron anywhere?

• Still unresolved. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

there's no link   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Matuyama–Brunhes geomagnetic boundary can you link/explain "geomagnetic boundary"?

• Still unresolved. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Later that year, the boundary was re-dated by whom?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• They who?

the people discussed in literally the preceding sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• can you link Old World?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• developed attachment not sure what this means

muscle attaches to the bone. We don't have muscle so we can't tell how strong it was, but we have bone, and the imprints the muscle left on the bone indicate strong attachment   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain in the article? Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• At the probably midpoint of the shaft should "the" be here? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Therapyisgood: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• The tibia was described in 1991, and was determined to belong to a young female H. e. yuanmouensis.[4][2] switch refs. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Files' copyrights checks out. Article is well-written with no OR. All references are reliable. I could not access any of the sources to verify text, but I could access this, using which I could verify the following statements: "The incisors are overall robust." checks out. "The labial (lip) side is mostly flat with the exception of some grooves and depressions" checks out. The article is stable, illustrated, and neutral. The only thing I could suggest is: Brown (2001) linked above on page 138 suggests "While these teeth are similar to those described for Zhoukoudian Homo erectus (Weidenreich 1937), this is not enough to indicate that they must be Homo erectus teeth. For instance, an incisor tooth of similar size and morphology is present in the Xujiayo 'archaic' Homosapiens maxilla (Jia et al 1979) dated to approximately 100 ka (Yuan et al 1986), as well as Krapina Neanderthals (Wolpoff 1979)." Does anyone else mention this, and should it be included in the article? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

no one else mentions this. Should I add the size comparison?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'll AGF on copyright violations. Images have appropriate captions. Images are definitely relevant. Article avoids or explains technical jargon as explained above. Passing. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)