Talk:Tautavel Man

Tautavel Man 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.
Review: January 26, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cave or subspecies?

There is a tendency that this article is describing the cave rather than the human subspecies. Should some of the content be exported to Arago Cave? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Arago 21 into this article

Since Arago 21 is a stub it would work best in this article. I don't think any other hominid fossils have their own page, and since this article is lacking depth it would fit in well. Jack (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is the list of > fossils Drift chambers (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't find that. I'll remove the banners. Would then be nice to have subheadings under Discovery and representative fossils to describe each fossil in brief. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tautavel Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MeegsC (talk · contribs) 21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an interesting article, about a subject I am almost completely unfamiliar with. It may take me several days to post my comments. MeegsC (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: we're coming up on the 3 week mark User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dunkleosteus77. I have no excuse other than disorganization! Here goes...

General comments: A complete and interesting read about a group of humans I knew nothing about before reviewing this article. Overall, I think it's looking pretty good. However, there are some grammatical and structural issues that could use smoothing. I'll detail those below. One thing I'd suggest is that you shorten your sentences where possible. Studies show that the average reader loses 5% comprehension for every word over 25 in a sentence. You have many complex sentences, including lots with multiple dashes and multiple parentheses. It will help your readers, some of whom may be dealing with unfamiliar concepts, if you make things easier for them.

Lede

“…550 to 400 thousand years ago…” My reading “hiccuped” here. I think “from 550,000 to 400,000 years ago” or "550-400,000 years ago" would be clearer.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”…a long and highly variable lineage of transitional fossils which inhabited the Middle Pleistocene of Europe, and would eventually evolve into the Neanderthals...” Transitional fossils didn’t inhabit the Pleistocene — and certainly didn’t evolve into Neanderthals! ; ) This sentence needs reworking.
Midway through the first paragraph, you suddenly introduce "The skull", talk a little about it, then flip back to more general info (robust skeleton, height, etc.) I'd recommend you put all the general info together, then introduce the skull. I also think you need to explain why "THE skull" is so important, given that other bones were also discovered.

I just figured I'd go from top to bottom User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The confusion (for this reader, anyway) is that everything in this paragraph is about the people in general (they/their), except for 'the' skull. I think you need to mention something that makes it clear why this is the only thing you refer to specifically rather than generally. MeegsC (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered, given that you only talk about "the skull", how they could possibly know height, robust skeletons, etc. I think you probably need to mention that a range of bones were found.

We can say they had a robust skeleton because we have parts of the rest of the skeleton, which is why we have the sentence "They seem to have had an overall robust skeleton." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest then that you add "Based on the range of bones found..." or something similar to the start of that sentence. Because in the lede, there's no such indication! MeegsC (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't hurt to repeat the name of the cave at the start of the second para, given that the first para was all about the humans.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need a comma after "river". Or a period, with the "overlooking" bit moving to a second sentence. Otherwise, the river is overlooking the plain, which I'm guessing isn't what you meant.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...(and following)" doesn't need to be parenthetical. You could say "during and after human occupation".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd slow down a bit in para two and explain what "beds" are. Or at least link it. Don't assume your readers know.

linked User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's human remains that are present in the beds, not humans. Or, if you mean in the time period, then explain how the beds relate to time. I'd suggest you break the sentence after "from beds Q-C", and give "Bed G" its own sentence—particularly given its importance. I'd also suggest you work the parenthetical into the sentence.

I mean this is geology, so it's assumed "humans are present" means human fossils, not people living within the rock User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. MeegsC (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comma before "including" in the list of hunted animals.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put evidence of fire last, since that's in the most recent bed.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More coming... MeegsC (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research history

Were the first bones to be discovered actually fossils? The linked source says only "animal bones". If you can find a source that says so, I'd suggest replacing your parentheses to say "Fossilized animal bones were first reported..."

if they were fresh, they wouldn't have been considered antediluvian User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you work the "Great Flood" bit into the main sentence rather than using parentheses? You might need to split the current sentence in two.

the parentheses is just glossing antediluvian User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"These remains were formally described by him and fellow archaeologist (and his wife) Marie-Antoinette this same year..." Use active voice here: "He and fellow archeologist Marie-Antoinette de Lumley (his wife) formally described the remains later the same year." I'd suggest breaking the rest into a separate sentence.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"~~Nonetheless,~~In 1979, ~~Mr. and Mrs.~~ the de Lumleys suggested..."

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you rework the "but subsequent authors..." bit to say "...classify the remains into H. heidelbergensis." (period), and then explain about the German Mauer mandible and Neanderthals in another sentence.
I'd recommend "(and thus distorted)" rather than "(that is, warped)" in explaining the issue with the skull. And break that sentence off after "Arago 47"; otherwise, it's far too long.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use contemporaneous rather than contemporary to avoid confusion. Otherwise (given the word's second meaning of "belonging to or occuring in the present") you could be comparing the skull to the skulls of modern Europeans. If H. heidelbergensis is what you're comparing it to, do you even need to include "contemporary European humans"?

done, and the classification of those other European humans is much debated User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your list of reconstructions, add "in" before "1982 and again in 1984", lose "and" in "and in 1982 and again in 1991", and use "Marie-Antoinette" in place of "Mrs.". I'd suggest you do this everywhere you use "Mrs."; after all, she has a name! ; )

Mrs. is fine. If I were talking about Henry de Lumley, I would use Mr. de Lumley since his name has already been brought up earlier User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The long sentence that starts "In 2015, de Lumley" could use some tweaking. Did she redescribe the remains? Or did she move the subspecies from H. heidelbergensis to H. erectus? I wasn't clear.

is it better now? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; that does it. MeegsC (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...other European archaic human remains..." reads awkwardly. How about "...other archaic human remains found in Europe...".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You finish the paragraph with a list of places. Are these places where related human remains have been found? Do we really need to know where these were? If so, tie those locations in better; right now it's unclear why they're included.

I thinks it's clear when it says other similar remains have been found in various parts of Europe, immediately followed by a list of locations from various parts of Europe User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest ending the sentence that starts "By 2014...", after "...19 lower limb elements". I'd break the second bit into "These bones represented 30 individuals: 18 adults and 12 juveniles." Again, it's a matter of reducing some of these giant, long sentences.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "non-tooth" should be "non-toothed".

no, all skull specimens which are not teeth User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the penultimate sentence, put a semi-colon instead of a comma after "male" and lose the "whereas".

comma should work User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing... MeegsC (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paleogeology

"The Caune de l’Arago is currently 35 m (115 ft) long and varies 5 to 9 m (16 to 30 ft) in width, but the walls and roof have likely caved in significantly since over the last hundreds of thousands of years." There seems to be an extraneous word in the "since over" bit.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a period at the end of the sentence which finishes "CERPT (Centre Européen de Recherche Préhistorique de Tautavel)".

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's an "occupation floor"? Please explain or wikilink.

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The deposits are stratified into a Lower Stratigraphic, Middle Stratigraphic, Upper Stratigraphic, and Upper Stalagmitic Complex,..." I think "Complex" should be plural here, and the preceding "a" removed.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do the four units correspond to the four complexes? And does the numbering start at the top and work down, or at the bottom and work up?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Throughout human occupation, the Caune de l'Arago provided a mountainous and riverine habitat, a plateau above, and a plain below." Add "access to" after provided.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The plain and plateau continually swung between...to... Do you mean in swung repeatedly from...to...? Also, the long parenthetical should be a separate sentence, and doesn't need to be parenthetical.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InDuring the forested events, the mammal assemblage of the cave ~~can~~ predominantly features... And I wonder if "periods" might be clearer than "events" (throughout this paragraph)

the word can is important because not all species listed were present in every forested layer User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predators in the temperate interval... Should "interval" be plural here?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the dental development of animals under 2 years old... Spell out two.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, long-term occupation wad... Correct "wad" to "was".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, human baby teeth are present in the long term and seasonally inhabited beds—indicating entire families with children inhabited the cave—whereas these are absent in bed L—which could mean only brief habitation by a small hunting party. Rework to get rid of triple dashes. You could, for example, end the first sentence after "cave" and start the next sentence "These are absent...".

would you prefer commas? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

The first sentence in the first paragaph is a marathon! Can it be reworked to shorten it?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence of the second paragraph, "That is," at beginning of the sentence is unnecessary.

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your various lists of bits and pieces, I'd suggest starting with the largest percentages and working down. Right now, the numbers are all over the place.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spell out two in "2 edges".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your list of raw materials should precede the clause that says they might have been collected from the river (i.e. Raw materials for tools—including quartz, sandstone, quartzose sandstone, and limestone—could have been collected from the river cobble.)

better? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "Nonetheless" with "However" in the sentence about macro-tools. And there should be commas instead of semi-colons.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comma after "bed C" in the paragraph about fire. And "onwards" can be removed from the next sentence.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Chandalier/Roche reference is listed as a cite journal, but is missing a journal. Is it perhaps a conference paper? (If so, cite conference is a better choice.)

I'm not sure what it is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the French language references are not listed as such.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The French government has some new links for the site, which might be worth checking out. This is the main "index" page. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an English version.

it's okay I can read French (most of the sources are in French anyways). It doesn't add anything new User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making all the other updates. Just the Anatomy section and the pix left to check out! MeegsC (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy

What is meant by "a relatively low face"?

like if you look at the face, it's closer to the chin than to the hairline User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Saringan" a place? If so "H. erectus from Saringan" might read clearer.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"but shorter than that of Neanderthals due to further development of the braincase." Is it Neanderthals that have the more developed braincase? If so, I'd suggest saying "but shorter than that of Neanderthals, whose braincase was further developed" or something similar. Right now, this clause isn't clear.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Like H. erectus s. s., the Tautavel face strongly projects in this direction, with the face-to-skull-base length ratio (ratio between the distance from the face to the base of the skull, versus the length of the base of the skull itself) is 48.1%. Projects strongly in what direction? The meaning of this sentence isn't clear. There's an extra "is" in there too.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The teeth are proportionally quite large, notably the P4 (2nd premolar) and M2 (2nd molar) in the Middle Pleistocene of Europe." I'm not clear on why the last part of the sentence is necessary. Didn't their whole existence fall into the Middle Pleistocene?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the "Swanscombe occipital bone" without explanation. Is this another Tautavel Man location? An unrelated bone?

Swanscombe is already mentioned in Taxonomy User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some light copyediting on the Anatomy section (adding imperial measurements, spelling out numbers under ten, combining a single-sentence paragraph, etc.). Please check to be sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of any sentence. The pictures all look to be fine: appropriately licensed, and all add something to the article. MeegsC (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article now meets all of the requirements for a Good Article. The prose is smooth, the pictures are appropriate and properly licensed, the topic coverage is broad and well-referenced. Nice job! MeegsC (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about lede

"from approximately 550 to 400,000 years ago". Just a comment - perhaps this phrase needs clarification to mean "550,000 to 400,000 years ago"? Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Normally for ranges I write "550 to 400 thousand years ago" because, as you pointed out, that other way is potentially ambiguous User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]