Jump to content

Talk:Australopithecus afarensis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAustralopithecus afarensis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2020Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 24, 2009, and November 24, 2023.

plain english

[edit]

you have reverted to an earlier version and removed a lot of information recently added.

Why cant you write this in plain english? phrases like

'Further finds at Afar, including the many hominid bones in "site 333", produced more bones of concurrent date, and led to Johanson and White's eventual argument that the Koobi Fora hominids were concurrent with the Afar hominids.'

is pompous and difficult to understand. Better to write

' Johanson and White found further bones dated around the same time as the previous finds at 'Site 333', and they now believe that the hominids at Koobi Fari were alive the same time as the Afar hominids'

If your going to write science, you need to write it in a way that the average person can understand. peppering the text with long latinised words and obscure grammar just drives people away from reading the rest and is elitist. Please write in plain english for the average person. Dont dumb it down, just dont use 20 long latin words when 5 anglo-saxon ones say the same thing.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~ So that everyone knows who you are. As you can see by the edit diff, I did not touch the paragraph you are complaining about. What I did do was remove or modify language that repeats already given informaiton or that talks directly to the reader. This isn't a science magazine, this is an encyclopedia. - UtherSRG 12:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thats as may be, but you still need to make it readable. The sort of person that looks this sort of articlein an encyclopedia may not have a scientific background. No point in an encyclopedia if no one reads it cos its unitelligble to anyone with an IQ less than 150. Do we want to make wikpedia used by all or just by a few over educated elitist snobs ? Better that its read by all , surely!!! In which case, write plain english!!!

193.131.115.253

Something that isn't plain English is that this article states the name Lucy comes from the Beatles whereas Lucy Maud Montgomery (a random example) was born in 1874, where the name Lucy appeared much earlier in history. For the sake of pedantry can this section be reworded to reflect that "Lucy's naming comes from..."? AsparagusTips (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Pic of Afarensis Skeleton!!!

[edit]

Please I advise no one else to change Lucy's skeleton pic, this one is better than that old foggy one before. I didn't place that pic but I thank the person who changed it.

that's my first picture to be placed in the wiki! took it on my trip to mexico, you're very welcome!!! :) --Danrha 17:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

subtitel of the first picture correct?

[edit]

I was wondering whether the subtitle under the picture of the original remainings of Lucy is correct. How come that they are in Mexico, whereas the text states that they are preserved in Addis Abeba. The latter would be more comprehensible, since it was found in Ethopia. (A1977 20:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have investigated and i apologize for my mistake, the skeleton from the picture is a replica... although i was misinformed in the exposition. --Danrha 15:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aramis, Ethiopia?

[edit]

I was surprised to see this as a live link in the article because I've been working on Ethiopian geography articles, & I've never heard of this place before. So I assumed that I learned something new today, & followed the link. Which led me to an article about a fictional character from The Thee Musketeers -- but there was a link in that article to a disambiguation page, so I followed that one. Which did not include an "Aramis, Ethiopia".

Could the person responsible for that fact please check her/his notes & assure me that the link is spelled correctly (or close enough to how it sounds)? Once that is done, I could start the process of checking my notes & try to write an article for it. -- llywrch 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search. It's legitimate. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Acording to the resources listed, nearly all of them come from people who very biased towards evolution. Evolution hasn't been proven, and intelligent design hasn't been disproven. I think it would be unfair to simply state all of this information as fact when it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Many scientists still hold that this "missing link" is nothing more than an extinct form of primate, not a common ancestor for mankind. Wouldn't it do more justice to science to at least make a small note or something that the information in this page isn't accepted by all of the scientific community and give a brief description from a intelligent design perspective, or at least make a note that further testing is needed before it can be said with absolute certainty to be true?

Yes and the article on human embryology is resourced by people who have a bias against the "Stork Theory" of human reproduction. Its completely unfair that this article be biased towards data, facts, logic, scientific consensus and application. In fairness articles should include every superstition and psuedoscientific fantasies like creationism. SHEESH!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.142.25.130 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think it's standard practice for encyclopedia's to assume evolution is true. I believe this is done because articles are usually written by "experts" in that particular field. And the experts (biologists) believe that the evidence for evolution is more than adequate to merit general (if not universal and unequivocal) acceptance. Go figure. Miguel Chavez 20:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The vast majority of scientists studying A. afarensis see the species as an ancestor of Homo spp. If you can provide legitimate, scholarly, peer-reviewed sources that show that some researchers disagree with this view, then perhaps those sources should be added, either to this article or to the transitional fossil article. I would argue, however, that the study of A. afarensis is something that can only be conducted using the scientific method, and since intelligent design inherently precludes the use of the scientific method, to discuss intelligent design on this page would be the equivalent of discussing scientific proof for the existence of Daffy Duck in that entry. QuinnHK 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hexc0de 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Creationism-lite, or Intelligent Design, is poor science. And the only people who doubt evolution are people who don't like the idea that man descended from more primitive species. If Biblical Creationism is to be taught alongside evolution, then should Navajo Creationism, Islamic Creationism, Egyptian Creationism, Norse Creationism, etc. 199.76.152.229 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago." This is a statement of fact. A "fact" is a piece of knowledge which is undisputably proven to true through solid evidence (i.e. multiple witnesses, reliable contemporary documentation, objective analysis, etc.) Unless undisputable proof of a 3 million year old age can be found it's still "best guess." I have yet to find an objective analysis of the method used[1]. I haven't found one that doesn't either assume it is accurate or vise versa. At the minimum it is contraversial and as such it should be noted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiocality (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 July 2007

It is a matter of scientific fact, as defined by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. It is subject to religious dispute involving pseudoscience. See NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To state that something is millions of years old, one must have a lot of evidence. There was a story of a group of scientists who studied a fossilized foot and dated it millions of years old...they then found out that it was discovered inside a cowboy boot.
This claim is completely false, as you would have found if you had taken even the 2 seconds of googling it requires to find out. Some creationists (Carl Baugh and Don Patton) have touted that a cowboy boot filled with some hardened material and some bones is a fossilized human foot. (They give no plausible explanation for how the bones and skin inside the boot could become fossilized while the boot itself did not. It's overwhelmingly likely that the bone is not fossilized, just surrounded by sedimentary rock.) No scientists ever dated it and were surprised it came from a boot. How could they? It's not been taken out of the boot! And the methods scientists use to date very old fossils rely on dating the rocks around the fossil, not the fossil itself. There is lots of evidence that lucy's bones and the fossils of numerous other creatures are millions of years old, and radiometric dating has been verified with many other independent dating methods such as dendrochronology, varve chronology, coral growth patterns, etc. Scientific articles should be based on science, not second-hand misremembered stories creationists have heard and never bothered to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.225.95 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also am more inclined to believe in intelligent design based on the significant amount of data supporting it. But because we obviously have no way of knowing exactly what happened at the beginning of the earth, we must base our beliefs on what evidence we can find. --Watchout4snakes! (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who discovered Lucy

[edit]

Small technical point. Didn't Lucy catch Johanson's eye. His book Lucy portrays it that way, "I noticed something lying on the ground..." (p. 16) and I doubt they saw it at the same time. Also, his book says they discovered the fossil remains on Nov. 30th, not the 24th (p. 13). Am I missing something? Can anyone confirm or refute my understanding of the facts. This would be much appreciated. I am a stickler for the details, and it bothers me still when I hear that it was Louis that discovered Zinjanthropus. Miguel Chavez 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Several changes

[edit]

I have removed the reference to Lucy's discovery in the opening paragraph. The emphasis in the opening paragraph should be on the species that the article is about, not on a single discovery. It seems to me that the placement of importance on Lucy's discovery in the opening paragraph has only been done because this article is part of 'WikiProject Ethiopia'. Let's not bias our articles towards certain countries.

I removed a short sentence that tells us that Australopithecus afarensis belongs to the genus Australopithecus, which I think will be obvious to the reader.

'There are differing views on how Lucy or her ancestors first became bipedal full-time.' It is not universally agreed upon that A. afarensis did move on two legs all the time. Indeed, the article goes on to say 'In fact these hominines may have occasionally walked upright but still walked on all fours'. I have ammended this.

My 2004 copy of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution puts the known date of A. afarensis at >4 to 2.5 millions of years ago. This is somewhat different to 3.9 to 3 million years ago in this article. User:Paul_P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.196.230 (talk • contribs) .

I agree about the emphasis on the species. I have been working on creating pages for major finds. Does anyone object to me breaking Lucy out onto her own page? I mean we have pages for Taung Child and Mrs. Ples. I think Lucy is just as deserving. And when we have individual pages for the finds, we can add a lot more detailed pictures and info about the fossil itself and why it is significant. Nowimnthing 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should go for it. User:Paul_P

Lucy's child

[edit]

Cool story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5363328.stm

Aquatic Ape

[edit]

The Aquatic Ape theory is pseudo-scientific nonsense and does not deserve an entire paragraph under Bipedalism. It should be entirely removed or significantly trimmed down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs) . - UtherSRG (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More Changes

[edit]

As referred to just above, I have removed reference to the Aquatic Ape theory (recently re-inserted). Whether a valid theory or not, it is not relevent to a specific entry on one particular hominin taxon such as A. afarensis. If it is to be discussed/debated, this should happen either on the Aquatic ape hypothesis page, or on more general pages on human origins. AAH enthusiasts, I request that you adhere to the spirit of this request and note that I have also removed general discussion of the savanna hypothesis from this entry as well (see bipedalism for further discussion). I feel that taxon specific pages should not discuss too deeply broader evolutionary theories, but should stay focussed on that taxon alone.

While keeping it impartial to the differing academic views on A. afarensis locomotion, I have tightened up the English in the bipedalism section, and added some information on shoulder joint orientation, and pelvic and lower limb morphology. I've edited and retitled the "brain size" section to reflect a short but more general section on craniodental morphology as well as brain size. I also changed the section on Social Behaviour, making it more reflective of the consensus view of this issue.Ucgaweh 04:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ethiopia

[edit]

Now that the bulk of Lucy's discovery has been moved to a seperate page, can we remove this page from WikiProject Ethiopia? Paul P 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't edit wikipedia while sleep-deprived.

[edit]

I added a bit to the bipedalism section based on criticisms of the part-time arboreal hypothesis that I think ultimately go back to Owen Lovejoy. Unfortunately I have no citation beyond "I learned it my Paleontology class from a Lovejoy fan".

assumptions!

[edit]

you authors of wikipedia are very bias! the earth has not been around for these millions of years, and you are incredibly derrogatory towards creationism. 64.6.121.48 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Courtney M.[reply]

I think current scientific thinking agrees with you. The Earth hasn't been around for millions of years but, billions.131.91.92.184 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. No assumptions. Just good examination of the facts. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing derogatory in the article; in fact the article doesn't mention creationism once. QuinnHK 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a creationist, and I also see no derision in this article. it does, however, promote one particular interpretation of the data, namely the Darwinian theory of evolution. Though, I can't agree with UtherSRG that there are no assumptions made. When dealing with the unobservable past, one has to make assumptions. Many assumptions are made here, as well as in many articles that deal with the remote past -- assumptions based on the presupposition that Darwinian evolution is true. A creationist working with the same data, can easily interpret the data to fit into the model of supernatural creation. The difference isn't the data. The difference stems from the interpretation of the data -- an interpretation which is influenced by your individually held world view. User:Hexc0de Friday, 2007-02-23 T 01:52 UTC.

See NPOV: Making necessary assumptions .. dave souza, talk 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, so that makes sense. I can respect a person's decision, but shouldn't we go with the most logical assumption? "Lucy" is actually a great example of how many assumptions are made with macroevolutionists. I would think that at least instead of presenting the information as facts (as the article clearly presented) that it should state the theory of evolution as it is, and that is an unconfirmed hypothesis. --Watchout4snakes! (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Kohl-Larsen

[edit]

What was wrong about my edits? Ludwig Kohl-Larsen really found a jaw of Australopithecus afarensis in 1934 in Laetoli. You have to read the German aricle about him. He discovered Australopithecus afarensis in Tanganyika. But he didn't know, how important that could be. His work is missing completely in this article. - Suedwester93 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put the info in with good formatting, and in a good position. Most of what you added was already in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, your English was incorrect, and your information was unsourced. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted name of section to "Current Debate"

[edit]

Contrary to Gamekeeper's last edit summary, the title "Current Debate" is clearer, and does not necessarily reflect any creationist bias. Scientists Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen are not "creationist" scientists.

Hi I don't think 'current debate' is a a good title as it does not give any information as to what the current debate is about. I prefer Lineage Question or even more simply Lineage , which should follow after the physical characteristics section as lineage arguments tend to rely on the physical characteristics. I would like to see the subject of Lineage expanded, as this is the reason for much interest in this topic.
On a separate note: the research referenced is used by a lot of creationist websites to cast doubt on evolutionist theories. Some misrepresent the data as showing that this is descended from Gorilla's which is not what the research shows, they also link this to Lucy whereas the jaw bone in question was not Lucy's. I don't think this research should be excluded because of its interest to creationist quite the contrary, as long as it is represented factually. GameKeeper 09:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dave for filling out the lineage section. I have altered it slightly as the paper here does not conclude that the Australopithecus afarensis could be a gorilla ancestor, just that the shape of the jaw had followed a path of Parallel evolution. This is a precursor to the evolution of the 'robust' brunch of the Hominina sub-tribe and as humans are part of the 'gracile' branch means that 'Australopithecus afarensis' is not a common ancestor of modern man. GameKeeper 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was something I'd picked up incorrectly in skim reading the same paper. It looks as though the jaw bone was from found near the first family site though found much later, and other fossils from various sites had similar morphology. Now what we need is more info on Ardipithecus ramidus, and probably a correction to the "Related work" section which says it was "contemporaneous with Australopithecus afarensis" – if I've read the paper correctly it was about a million years earlier, perhaps there was an overlap. Also, the Tim White article didn't seem to mention Lucy, must try to fix that sometime. .. dave souza, talk 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC) got mixed up, the original link to the comparison photos showed a First Family site fossil, the specimen discovered in 2002, A. L. 822-1 which closely matches that of the gorilla was found in the Unda Hadar, a tributary of the Awash River running parallel to the Kada Hadar, 2.5 km east of A. L. 288 (Lucy's site)... dave souza, talk 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this for a while I have removed the discussion of this from the summary as 1) This is primary source info 2) A single piece of evidence like this is not enough to be considered conclusive. 3) The conslusion of the paper just suggest this casts doubt, it certainly should not be seen as conclusive. ('casts doubt on the postulated role of Au. afarensis as the common ancestor of later hominins')

Forgery?

[edit]

Some IDiots claim lucys hips etc have been altered, where does this come from? I assume there is no indication of it being true.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See TalkOrigins Archive, [1] and [2] both mention hip and knee joints, and you can use the search function to find other articles about the subject. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why no distinction between AL288 and AL822? Do we think it's a typo?

[edit]

"Lineage questions" and 2006 study of finds in 2002 (nowhere tabulated!) completely change the theorized branching of the human tree. This is sourced in one reference, but it changes completely the thinking of the 1974 finds. Why no comparison of tree illustrations, or discussion in depth? Is this reasonable scientific disagreement too subject to attack by the politically charged creationists? Or, are we just too disappointed we have had to abandon our discoveries as not on our direct ancestor tree? I would think a well-reasoned explanation would diminish the noise from dogmatics, by demonstrating how science revises its conclusions... SalineBrain (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) this is stuped man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.208.65 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. It is an exageration to say the conclusions in Lineage questions about AL288 & AL822 completely change the human tree. Basically around 4-5 million years ago the species that had evolved from the Pan (chimp) common ancestor with Homo (man) branched into 2 separate groups. The robust hominids (with gorilla like jawbones, but NOT closely related to gorillas), and the gracile hominids. We know these branches existed due to later fossil finds. The Homo branch , which we belong to, evolved from the gracile hominids. It was originially thought Lucy and the Australopithecus afarensis lived before the split occured between the graciles and the robusts and were ancestral to both, however the jawbone analysis suggests that actually Lucy and brethern had already split and were only ancestral to the robusts, hence AL822 a possibly older fossil is a more likely candidate for a ancestor of both the robusts and the graciles.
To move the Australopithecus afarensis to being ancestral to only the robusts on the human family tree is not a big change. It only means the split took place slightly earlier than originally thought (perhaps around 5 mya) and does not change the 'family tree' at all, just Australopithecus afarensis location on it.
I've seen the research regarding AL822 misrepresented to suggest that humans are actually more closely related to Gorillas, which is a misunderstanding of the research. Gorilla-like is used in the context of the research because the Robusts were more 'Gorilla-like' than other hominids due to convergent evolution, but were still more closely related to humans (homo) and chimps (pan) that gorillas.
I've tried to update the article to make this clearer. I would like to remove the statement 'Gorilla-like' altghough in the original research because without context it can lead to the wrong conclusions. In my opinion within the article 'Robust-like' would be better. GameKeeper (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Robust, we even have a page that fairly clearly describes what that means in morphology. Nowimnthing (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concensus of 2, so I have removed the gorilla reference. I think the description is now clearer. GameKeeper (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AL 288 is the famous Lucy but AL 822 is a very well preserved Skull there is no typo there. GameKeeper (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead statement "From analysis it has been thought that A. afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens.[1][2]." doesn't mention the current status of this thinking, and presumably a qualification should be added, like "but a more recent find has been interpreted as showing it was more likely an ancestor of only the robust australopithecines branch of the hominid evolutionary tree." Or something on those lines. . . dave souza, talk 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add a reference to this page?

[edit]

Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that only programmers can edit :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Udrea (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too hard with a bit of practice. What do you want to add? Katherine (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add these references :

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Anthropology/BiologicalPhysicalAnthropology/?view=usa&ci=9780195157062

http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA200505013.pdf

for a new section about the fossil A.L. 444 - 2 Stefan Udrea (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The method described here is probably the easiest to start with. You just slot the details of the source into the template. So, the reference for the book review would look something like this:
<ref>Nancy Minugh-Purvis, [http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA200505013.pdf "Review of The Skull of Australopithecus afarensis"], ''Oxford University Press'', 2004. Retrieved 14 February 2011.</ref>
...and you just paste that in immediately after whatever text you want to include. Does that help? Katherine (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Katherine.Stefan Udrea (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


on average how tall was this species? on average, how much did they weigh???? interesting facts i was looking for but could find!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.145.28 (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this ref was added

[edit]

An IP added this ref to the lead, with the edit summary that this possible new species lived at the same time as Afarensis:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/339522/title/New_ancestor_grasped_at_walking

It's not clear why it was added, since it's not saying anything about Afarensis. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Australopithecus afarensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Australopithecus afarensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australopithecus afarensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Australopithecus afarensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 00:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll happily take this one on. Just give me a few days to get through it. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm all done with my review. Apologies for working in bits and pieces; real life is preventing me from getting large uninterrupted chunks of time on Wikipedia. I see you've already fixed all the prose issues, so all that's left are a few potential image issues we should clarify before we move on. The article was a pleasure to read. I hope all is well on your end during these crazy times. Ajpolino (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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):
  • Lead - Pardon my ignorance in this field, but it's not clear to me why stone tool use would indicate meat was also a dietary component. Is this obvious to the educated reader, or could the phrasing be tweaked to make that more clear?
Stone tools are generally interpreted as having been butchering implements   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy>Classification - The abbreviation "Ma" starts appearing suddenly. I assume it's some variation on the "million years ago" abbreviation you define in the lead?
fixed
  • Anatomy>Skull - A definition of "cc" would be nice; a wikilink to Cubic centimetre would do.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anatomy>Skull - Taken together, the duration of brain growth was much shorter than modern humans and However, brain growth was prolonged are a bit confusing. Can you clarify? Are they referring to two different things? Or is A. afarensis brain growth prolonged relative to apes but much shorter than modern humans?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor things (not essential for this review; take 'em or leave 'em):
  • Lead - ...but major fossil finds would not be discovered until... reads a bit weird. Can one discover a fossil find? Perhaps it could be reworded to something like "with major fossil finds in the 1970s"
changed to "but major fossil finds would not take place until the 1970s"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - In the 1972–1977 expedition in Hadar, Ethiopia, the International Afar Research Expedition led... it's uncomfortable to read "expedition" twice so closely together. I can't think of a smooth way to cram the years, location, expedition name, and leaders all into one sentence. Maybe it would live better as two sentences?
"From 1972–1977, the International Afar Research Expedition—led by anthropologists Maurice Taieb, Donald Johanson, and Yves Coppens—unearthed several hundreds of hominin specimens in Hadar, Ethiopia..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - recovered notably fossil trackways - is "notable" intended?
no   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see what's meant now. I'd suggest cutting the word "notably" since it's momentarily confusing, and we can safely assume that each discovery you mention in this article is "notable" (again, not necessary for the review; up to you). Ajpolino (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy>Research history - (though the individuals were not necessarily related) can be removed. It doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article. Though interestingly AL 333 doesn't mention it, so perhaps you could add it there instead?
The common name "First Family" is misleading so it's good to declare that here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anatomy>Skull - Just an opinion: I'd advocate swapping the order of the two paragraphs in this subsection. The second paragraph paints a nice picture of A. afarensis skull anatomy for the reader. The first paragraph jumps into the details of cranial volume and would be a nice follow-up to the second.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anatomy>Size - Similarly, I think the first two paragraphs of this subsection could be swapped. Paragraph 2 is about size generally, based on several specimens. Paragraphs 1 and 3 are estimates of the individuals that left specific fossils.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  • Everything appears to be referenced to high-quality sources. Sadly I have no background knowledge of this field. I spot checked a few references, and I'm assuming the rest checks out as well.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):
  • Lots of great images! I'm no copyright expert, but a few possible issues to consider:
    • File:Lucy-reconstruction.jpg is a derivative work of a sculpture installed in a public place. In some countries (e.g. Austria where the statue depicted in File:NHM - Australopithecus afarensis Modell 1.jpg is displayed) freedom of panorama protects the photographer from having to worry about the copyright status of the statue. Sadly, the US is not one of those countries. So my default leaning is that we can't host the image unless we get a release from the copyright holder of the statue. Do you know anything else about the statue depicted in the image? A quick Google search didn't turn up anything. Perhaps there's some reason that Smithsonian statues are not covered by copyright that I'm unaware of? I'm happy to reach out to someone more knowedgable on image copyright. Additionally, we can try reaching out to the Smithsonian. They may be willing to release a higher quality image under a compatible license.
There is no FoP in the US, and this image along with everything under Commons:Category:John Gurche is applicable for deletion. I have a lot of deletion requests regarding hominins as it is, so my plan was to wait until the dust settled on that before reaching out to Mr. Gurche, keeping the images online until further notice. You may reach out to the Smithsonian or Gurche if you wish   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Test-pit_L8_at_Laetoli_Site_S.jpg is uploaded from an eLife paper under CC-BY-SA 4.0. At a glance it looks like eLife's default license is the less restrictive CC-BY 4.0. Am I missing something? Or was it just a typo at upload? If the latter, could you correct the license at Commons?
I always mix up those 2 licenses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Museum footprints.jpg may also have a derivate work issue with the mural above the footprint cast. It looks like Tanzania may not have freedom of panorama. So we may not be able to host a photograph of the 2D work of art. Again, if you don't have other info about the mural, we can consult someone for a more educated opinion.
I'll have to add this one onto Commons:Deletion requests/Hominin photos violating FoP   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Then I'll mark this review as a pass. File:Lucy-reconstruction.jpg is still a problem for now, but I'll take your word that you'll resolve it. Also I'll let you do the reaching out to Gurche. My guess is you're more likely to have luck convincing him than I am. Thanks again for an interesting read! All the best. Ajpolino (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australopithecus_afarensis&oldid=1193676629"