Talk:Paranthropus robustus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 20:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link to John D. Hawk in the external links appears to be incorrect. The Hawk linked to is an American soldier, and there seems to be no anthropology connection there.

@Dunkleosteus77: - I'm referring to the wikilink in "John D. Hawk's website". John D. Hawk is an American soldier with no apparent connection to anthropology. After further research, I'm assuming the wikilink is supposed to go to John D. Hawks. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" The species is thought to have exhibited marked sexual dimorphism, with males substantially larger and more robust than females. The brain volume of the specimen SK 1585 is estimated to have been 476 cc. Based on 3 specimens, males may have been 132 cm (4 ft 4 in) tall and females 110 cm (3 ft 7 in). Based on 4 specimens, males averaged 40 kg (88 lb) in weight and females 30 kg (66 lb). " - The brain volume sentence seems out of place within the sexual dimorphism content. Maybe move it to after the weight sentence. Also, MOS:NUMERALS would want three and four, rather than 3 and 4.

moved, and I prefer using numbers over spelling them out because my brain can more easily identify them User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that TM 1517 image is of a cast of the fossil, not the fossil itself, right? From what I've read, almost all hominin fossils on public display are casts. If it's a cast, then maybe indicate in the caption that it's a cast.

"However, remains were not firmly dated, and it was debated if there were indeed multiple hominin lineages or if there was only 1 leading to humans" - MOS:NUMERALS here, "one" instead of "1"

"McHenry also estimated the living height of 3 P. robustus specimens (male SK 82, male SK 97, and female or subadult SK 3155)" - MOS:NUMERALS on the 3
" given the elevated levels of Strontium compared to adults in teeth from Swartkrans Cave" - I don't think strontium should be capitalized

"Bone tools dating between 2.3 and 0.6 mya" - You state that the sources indicate these tools are almost certainly from P. robustus, but the range of the tools exceeds the range of P. robustus on one end. Do the sources have an explanation for this?

the dates of these cave members aren't well constrained, so I changed it to "Swartkrans (Members 1–3)..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A 2011 Strontium isotope study of P. robustus teeth " - Again, not sure that strontium should be capitalized

There's a large quantity of duplinks in here: orangutans, lumbar vertebrae, vertebral arch, H. ergaster, tooth enamel, tooth root, Meganthereon, baboons, and A. sediba

done, and sediba isn't a duplink

Oops. You're right, the checker tool I have installed flagged one of the cladistics charts as an inline link.

Some of the sources have no identifier attached. See if any of them have an OCLC or doi, or if the publisher has an ISSN

I see only 1 which is a pHD dissertation, so it doesn't really get any identifiers User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]