Talk:Neanderthal/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it, but it will take time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty big article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a very popular article with a lot of traffic, and consequently, disputes are inevitable with this many eyes. @Geoffrey.landis: insists on the inclusion of Discover Magazine in the lead, and I keep trying to tell him that a magazine has no place in this article (except in the External links section). What's your opinion? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be based on scholary articles only, except for, maybe, in the "research history" and "popular culture" sections. News articles on paleontological topics are prone to inaccuracy, error, and misunderstandings of reporters, I tell from experience. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geoffrey.landis: I will be deleting Discover Magazine again. If you still want it in the article, start a discussion on the talk page User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking so long to look at this; a very slow edit war on a citation in an article in which I have only minor interest is not high on my list of priorities.

1. User:Dunkleosteus77 stated above that the citation I added was to the lead. The citation I had added was in fact to the section 1.3 Classification, far from the lede.
2. Replying to User:Jens Lallensack, the citation was not to any fact of paleontology. It was a citation to the fact that both terms have been used. I see no reason why a scholarly source is preferable for this, unless perhaps you can find a scholarly source saying that both terms are used. Absent the reference I gave, a "citation needed" note should be added.
3. Dunkleosteus77 based his reversion on a statement that Discover magazine is not a reliable source. The term reliable source is not a matter of opinion. It is defined here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and, yes, Discover is a reliable source. If his comment is to be taken to mean that Discover may be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards but just not as a scholarly reference: as noted above, this is not a citation for a scholarly fact, it's a citation for usage.

(and in any case, I will remind you of the following statement in WP:RS: "Scholarship: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible... When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's different in paleontology; e.g., all our dinosaur FAs are primarily, and sometimes exclusively, based on primary sources. If the information cited is uncontroversial, sources like Discovery are generally considered OK, and I agree that this is the case here. I wonder, though, why is this necessary? Isn't this information covered by the existing source (which is also secondary, but written by an authority of the field)? If covered by that source, there is no need for a second one imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In an article with 352 references--one that includes two footnotes and four references discussing the "h" in the spelling of "Neanderthal"-- you're seriously suggesting that deleting a citation to the fact that there are two different proposed scientific terms is reasonable because "why is this necessary?" Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Discover is not a highly reputable source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make up your mind? When I point out that Discover is a reliable source by Wikipedia's specific definition, you say "oh, but we don't need a second citation." When I suggest that a second citation would be useful, you say "oh, but Discover is not a reliable source." Make up your mind.

I've said this over and over again. The term "reliable source" has a specific definition by Wikipedia. There isn't a subcategorization "this is a reliable source, but that is a highly reliable source": it's a reliable source or it isn't. It damages protocol to make up your own definition and delete citations because they don't meet your definition. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not contradictory statements. We do not need a second citation, and Discover is not a reliable source. We do not rely on magazines and news articles to accurately report on current taxonomic status because they are written by non-experts who may misunderstand or spin a narrative which inaccurately portrays current scientific consensus, and they are not peer reviewed to ensure accuracy (I'm sure there's an editor checking for typos, but not much else). If we need someone to tell us what Donald Trump said on such and such date, then we turn to the news User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, maybe quote from somewhere that actually uses the H.s. neanderthalensis terminology? Nothing recent I know of but could use Holloway 1985, citation I found seems to suggest this is a journal but fairly sure a book edited by E. Delson : title={The poor brain of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: see what you please}, author={Holloway, Ralph L}, journal={Ancestors: The hard evidence}, pages={319--324}, year={1985}, publisher={Alan R. Liss New York} Rhillman (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what you want me to do here. We already cite that book User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the first round. Sorry for the delay, I will have more time at hand the coming days. Do you plan to bring this to FA eventually?

The lead is quite loaded with citations. Citations in the lead are not required except for controversial statements, as all info should be explained in the article body anyways. Not a deal at all for GA level, but people may bring this up if you consider going to FA.

The citation being discussed was not added to the lead (nor the lede), it was in 1.3 Classification. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I do plan to go to FA User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

quite sophisticated: What does "quite" mean here? Sophisticated compared to what? This doesn't really say much. Was it on the same level to contemporary modern humans?

"quite sophisticated" to avoid people thinking "somewhat sophisticated" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These features are often explained as adaptations to conserve heat in a cold climate, but (aside from body fat storage) they are more likely products of genetic drift and adaptations for sprinting in the warmer, forested landscape that Neanderthals often inhabited. – But is this true? Source 62 instead states "a nasal performance suitable with living in cold and dry environments can be seen as a case of convergent adaptation involving both MH Arctic populations and Neanderthals". I only had a quick look at that source, but it seems the authors make clear that the nose is indeed adapted to cold and dry climate in neanderthals. Furthermore, source 62 is only about the nose, but your sentence indicates that not only the nose but also the other features (stocky built and so on) have been proposed to represent genetic drift, which is not in the source.

Whoops, it was actually this source that mentioned genetic drift. Fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

connecting to that, from further down in the article: More likely, the large nose was caused by genetic drift – there seems to be ongoing debate and this question is far from resolved. See for example this comment to one of the paper you cited: [1]. This needs to be neutral.

added. I wasn't sure how much text I should give the nose debate because there seems to be good consensus that the nose, osteologically, does not appear to show any adaptations to cold air. Even the nose reconstruction study which argues for cold-adaptation, which I appear to have omitted (but have added), says "Our twofold approach agrees with previous statements (3, 4, 7, 30) indicating that Homo neanderthalensis do not present a nasal phenotype compatible with adaptation to cold climates, at least in osteological terms" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

theologian and teacher Joachim Neander – I suggest "theologian and hymn writer" as this is what he is famous for.

I picked teacher it was included in the source, but now that I think about it, we generally don't require sources for peoples' occupations. Changed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

individual type specimen – "individual" seems superfluous, specimens are always individuals. Maybe write instead "from this single individual to the entire group" to have it simpler.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to the entire group – instead "to an entire species" would be more comprehensible I think.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

he recommended the genus name also be distinct from modern humans – you mean "from that of modern humans"? What about "he recommended to classify humans and neanderthals as separate genera".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first Neanderthal remains—Engis 2—were discovered in 1829 by Dutch naturalist Philippe-Charles Schmerling in the Schmerling Caves, Belgium, but he thought it was an ancient skull of an anatomically modern human. – sentence is a bit weird. "remains" (plural) bites with "an ancient skull" (singular). What about "The first Neanderthal remains—a skull known as Engis 2—were discovered in 1829 by Dutch naturalist Philippe-Charles Schmerling in the Schmerling Caves, Belgium, but he thought they belonged to an anatomically modern human."

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

gave it to German anthropologist – it is still referring to "the bomes" so should be "them"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most influential specimen was La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1. – discovered where?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French palaeontologist Marcellin Bouleauthored several publications – when?

authored several at different points in his career during the early 20th century User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He fueled the popular image of Neanderthals as barbarous – that means that image existed before?

Yeah. Schaaffhausen was a social darwinist and believed that the human species progressed from dumb and savage to intelligent and civilized, and so also believed that Neanderthal 1 was some primitive subhuman. I don't know how much detail is entirely necessary here User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

by conventions – by convention

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is largely thought that H. heidelbergensis was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans after populations became isolated in Europe, Asia, and Africa respectively – shouldn't it be "before" instead of "after"? I mean, to be a common ancestor you have to live before the separation of populations.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

430,000 year (ka) – "year" is not "ka". It should be "430 thousand years (ka)"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomic distinction between H. heidelbergensis and Neanderthals is mostly due to a fossil gap – "based on" instead of "due to"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, 430,000 year (ka) old bones at Sima de los Huesos could represent early Neanderthals or a closely related group, – based on what, anatomy?

what else would it be? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

basal and derived – would explain these in a gloss, maybe just "primitive" and "advanced", with "" to indicate this use is not 100% correct. These terms are of central importance for the understanding.

I don't wanna used the terms "primitive" and "advanced" in especially this context as this could also be extended to mean "stupid" and "not stupid". How about "ancestral" and from there it's pretty simple to extrapolate the meaning of "derived"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the fossil record greatly increases from 130 kya onwards, and specimens from this period make up the bulk of known Neanderthal skeletons – So it is rather quantity, not quality? When reading about "good quality" I think more about "well preserved". Maybe use "completeness" maybe?

changed to "much more complete" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two-step argues a single major environmental event – But this is only one step? What is the second? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

clarified User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous dates for the Neanderthal/human split exist. – maybe better "have been suggested"?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The date of around 250 kya cites the Florisbad Skull ("H. helmei") as being the last common ancestor (LCA) – weird wording, a skull cannot be an ancestor, only a population can.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A date cites, a date uses, a date says - not sure but I found these personifications confusing. Dates can only be proposed by researchers. I would refer to hypothesis or researchers instead.

There're numerous researchers (because there are a lot of studies who propose a lot of dates) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and so forth - superfluous it seems, the "such as" before the list does already indicate that the list is not necessarily exhaustive.

Not really. People often use "such as" when they actually mean "these are all the examples" (especially in news media, I find). For example, down below on the Cerutti Mastodon comment, I used "such as" instead of "these are the only example", which is a actually an unfortunately common tool used in formal writing User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using a mutation rate of – "Assuming"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal/Denisovans (or "Neandersovans") migrating out of Africa – so they split from H. heidelbergensis in Africa? You discuss at length when the split occurs, but please also state where it likely does occur.

Well those individuals who stayed in Africa were the ancestors of modern humans, and those who did not stay in Africa were the ancestors of Neanderthal/Denisovans. I'm not entirely certain what to put down as a location User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as well as Southwest – unlink "as"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 2017 study claimed the presence of Homo at the 130 ka Californian Cerutti Mastodon site - why only Homo; when the species is not known, why is this important here?

It was a thing in news media, such as New Scientist and the NY Times. Should I remove it? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but this is highly unlikely – to be a bit more prudent: "unlikely" is enough, I also would use "considered". "but this is considered unlikely".

"is largely considered implausible" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

residing in certain refuge zones. – but they are only important when ice is maximal, I think this needs some explanation.

added "during glacial maximums" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but encourage forest growth and deter megafauna; whereas frigid periods would produce the opposite – would use "," here instead of ";".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Boserupian Trap": Can you link or add an explanation for this term? Is it the same as the Malthusian trap?

The entire paragraph explains the Boserupian Trap. The Malthusian trap seems to talk about population overshoot User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthals had more robust and stockier builds than modern humans, though still maintained an upright posture; – this implies that stocky build makes it difficult to maintain upright posture. It is not evident to me why this would be the case; is this covered by the source?

That was already there when I started. It was once assumed that Neanderthals did not maintain an upright posture, so this was emphasized a lot in the article when I started. I removed it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthals had more robust and stockier builds than modern humans, though still maintained an upright posture; wider and barrel-shaped rib cages; wider pelvises; and proportionally shorter forearms and forelegs. – would be easier to read if this were two sentences, perhaps insert a stop after "upright posture". The first part is general ("stocky built"), and the second about the features that make it stocky, so these are different things that should not be put into the same list.

Is it good now that I removed the upright posture thing User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on 45 Neanderthal long bones – "Neanderthal" is superfluous, the topic of the article should be clear.

I mean I want to specify I'm talking about Neanderthals and not modern humans in the first sentence rather than having the reader deduce that when they go through the second sentence User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

likely an adaptation for cold-climate – why the "–" here?

No idea, removed

(expanded antero-posteriorly) – I suggest "expanded front-to-back"

changed to "expanded front-to-back, or antero-posteriorly)". Because I know what all the words mean I find it really confusing when you substitute things like "anteriorly" with "the front half" and things like that so I prefer to keep the actual word around User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and to fold in on itself somewhat – this one I don't understand.

The actual worded is invaginated which, according to google, means "be turned inside out or folded back on itself to form a cavity or pouch" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

suggest to link "flexion" --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image of a Neanderthal in a business suit really necessary? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to put an image from the early 20th century (Le Moustier) and something from the late 20th century (ideally Carlton Coon's Neanderthal in a business suit but that's not PD until 2061, so next best thing is the model at the Neanderthal Museum). If that section's getting too crowded, I can remove Ernst Haeckel's family tree User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I want to know your reasoning why you think there needs to be an image of a neanderthal in a suit to the article, how do you think it enhances the reader's experience, especially in the "History of Research" section? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason that Le Moustier is there, if you're discussing a piece of art, it's nice to actually see it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sinus size is not an important factor for breathing cold air – isn't this contradicting but sinuses are generally reduced in cold-adapted creatures?

No, the function of sinuses is unclear (in fact, they may have no function at all), so, even though sinuses are generally reduced in polar creatures, it cannot be said that they specifically aid in breathing cold air User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, a computer reconstruction of the Neanderthal nose and predicted soft tissue patterns shows some similarities to those of modern Arctic peoples, potentially meaning the noses of both populations convergently evolved for cold, dry air. – After "further" one expects an additional argument against the cold adaption hypothesis, but the opposite is the case. Maybe "in contrast" would be more suitable here.

Well no, the paragraph goes: argument against cold air (sinus size) → argument for cold air (sinuses are not important) → further argument for cold air (computer reconstruction), so the computer reconstruction is another argument in support of cold air User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the increased wear on the front teeth compared to the back teeth probably stem from repetitive use – "stems"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The incisors are known for being large and shovel-shaped – I suggest to delete "known for being". They either are or they are not.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The incisors are known for being large and shovel-shaped; and there was a strangely high frequency of taurodontism, a condition where the molars are bulkier due to an enlarged pulp (tooth core), which was once thought to have been a distinguishing characteristic of Neanderthals which lent some mechanical advantage or stemmed from repetitive use, but was more likely simply a product of genetic drift. – This sentence is too long to comprehend it with a single read.

Yeah I was thinking that was problematic. Split User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and there was a strangely high frequency – "strange" is not very encyclopedic language. Maybe "unusual"?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, interpersonal violence or large carnivores were more likely the source of severe trauma. – more likely than what? The risky hunting strategy that was mentioned in the previous paragraph? Readers will not remember that over such a long distance.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentiones caves and settlements, but never clearly states where they actually lived. The reader may assume that they lived both in caves and settlements, but a bit more on this would be nice.

I don't really know what specifically you're looking for here. There are details about Neanderthal cave layout interspersed throughout the article where relevant User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to state somewhere that they lived in caves in the first place. That there is evidence for living in caves, under rock overhangs, and forest settlements in the lowland. How did they look like? Another thing I'm missing is evidence for nomadic lifestyle. This will not be a hindrance for reaching GA of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added under Group dynamics. Don't really know how to answer "How did they look like?" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, cave hyaenas likely stole food and leftovers from Neanderthal campsites, and scavenged on dead Neanderthal bodies. – Pure speculation without any evidence it seems? If so, it might not be relevant. If you keep it, please don't present it as fact; it is only a single author and there are certainly others who may disagree. Instead say "In a 2010 study, it was speculated that" or similar.

We have evidence of hyena scavenging, and I think they were citing other sources when they said the part about stealing, but I'm not on university campus anymore due to the pandemic so I won't have access to it until fall User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got access back, the source specifically says "and hyenas even have stolen mammoth kitchen rubbish from a human camp site and imported at least one long bone fragment into their Perick Cave den (Diedrich 2005c)" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but that is another source by the same author. Even though, if you think it is totally uncontroversial then leave it as is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can add more sources from different authors if you want (I could just move in the source used in the cave hyena article for starters) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, it has also been claimed that the holes were made by a scavenging hyaena as there are a lack of cut marks stemming from whittling, but it is highly unlikely the punctures were made by teeth, and cut marks are not always present on bone flutes. – If you need to shorten, this would be sentence that is not entirely necessary, it does not tell us anything new about the Neanderthal.

For art, I wanted to include at least 1 viewpoint that says it's art and one that doesn't User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

of the Iraqi Shanidar 4 – Iraq exists since 1921, founded by the British. This neanderthal is certainly not an Iraqi.

I mean it's the same as saying "the French Moula-Guercy Cave". The cave has existed for a much longer time than the country of France, but we still say it's a French cave User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American archaeologist Alexander Marshack said that – "speculated" might be a more honest word.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The makers may have been a transitional culture of Neanderthals – not quite clear: transitional between what?

clarified User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthals collected the porous volcanic pumice, which, for contemporary humans, was probably used for polishing points and needles. – I do not understand the part with the contemporary humans here. Humans might have used it for polishing but Neanderthals not?

There aren't any points and needles associated with Neanderthal remains, but the source juxtaposed Neanderthals are associated with pumice and contemporary humans who are associated with pumice are thought to have used them to polish their points and needles User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Abri du Maras, France, there is evidence that Neanderthals produced string and cordage – I think the reader may want to know what this evidence is, since these materials are, as mentioned later, biodegradable.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal were able to create fire – "Neanderthals"

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and utilise complex spatial organisation – Of what? Of their settlements?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and the structures may have been used as light sources – As light sources? Did they burn them? How do I have to imagin that?

I don't know where that came from, deleted User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Le Moustier bust" picture: Is this supposed to be a juvenile, a male? I suggest to add this information to the image caption.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and there were also traces of the antibiotic-producing Penicillium – the drug would only be Penicillium chrysogenum though? Or are there more species producing drugs that Neanderthals might have used?

clarified User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was once thought that Neanderthals did not have language, and cognitive scientist Philip Lieberman declared that they – I think we need a date here. When did he declared that? The reader has no idea if this is a old idea steming from the 1890s or a more recent one; this is important I think.

He's been saying that since the 70s up until 2007 (as far as I've checked), and then he recants in 2015 (but I haven't done an in-depth search of Lieberman's publication history). I'm not sure how much to include User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2016, the DNA of Neanderthals from Denisova Cave shows evidence of interbreeding 100 kya – That would mean that a year later the DNA didn't show the evidence anymore. Maybe "was revealed to show" or similar.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, the Neanderthals of the German Hohlenstein-Stadel Cave – Why the "however" here? This tells the reader that the information given by the previous sentence needs to be corrected, which is not the case?

it's amending "may have occurred as early as 120 kya" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropologist John D. Hawks has argued that the genetic similarity to Neanderthals may be the result of both common ancestry and interbreeding, as opposed to just one or the other.[337] – That common ancestry results in similar genomes goes without saying. Do we really need to point this out?

not really; when it comes to genetics, the average reader doesn't really trust intuition User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

these dates are likely incorrect as they were based on ambiguous artefacts instead of direct dating – This is not neutral, as one study is declared to be correct and the others as "likely incorrect". This incorrectness is thus presented as fact although it is based on only a single study, so evidence for scientific consensus is not provided. This could be resolved with slight rewording: "these dates have been contestet" or "a 2014 study questioned these dates". Same problem in many other places of the article, I think it needs some work in this aspect before it can go to FAC. We need more distance.

The consensus we've arrived at in the article is that Neanderthals died out 40 kya (as opposed to 30 kya or 40–30 kya), so we present the Ebro River refuge hypothesis as being defunct/debased. What other parts of the article are you worried about neutrality? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and DNA evidence indicates H. sapiens contact with Neanderthals and admixture as early as 100 kya – isn't this content for the "Interbreeding with modern humans" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant in a couple areas. It's a common misconception that Neanderthals went extinct at first contact, which makes it relevant to discuss contact history here User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The flower burial was listed under "Art". Not sure if this would be art, does the source say so? If not, I would remove it from the list, also because the flower burial is mentioned in another section already. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "The association of flowers with Neanderthals adds a whole new dimension to our knowledge of his humannes, indicating that he had a 'soul' " which really sounds like flowers being used as artistic expression, but he doesn't specifically use the word "art" (but I can only access the first page preview so I don't know if he used it later) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the flowers indicate they had spirit, couldn't this be just religion or similar? You need a soul for that, but that is not necessarily art. In any case it is not ideal that the flower burial is treated twice in this article in separate paragraphs. I can send you the paper if you want btw. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Congratulations for the GA! This is a good deal of work, and a good read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]