Wikipedia:Featured article review/Homo floresiensis/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 18:24, 10 November 2011 [1].

Homo floresiensis[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Edhubbard, UtherSRG, Paul Barlow, WP Southeast Asia, WP Indonesia, WP Mammals, WP Primates, WP Palaeontology, WP Anthropology, WP Archaeology, WP Evolutionary biology, WP Tree of life, WP Human Genetic History

I am nominating this featured article for review because after an April 2011 notification of work needed, very little work has been completed on the article, and no discussion has taken place on the talk page. Some thoughts on the areas that need work:

Four citation needed tags stretching back to 2009.
A few other areas needing references. For example, in the Endemic cretinism hypothesis section, the sentence "The oral stories about strange human-like creatures may also be a record of cretinism." - says who? If this is from the study discussed earlier in the paragraph, it needs to be made more obvious. A few other areas like this - essentially, if an opinion is being given, it needs to have a reference.
Citation formatting needs work - there are bare URLs, references missing publishers, authors, access dates, etc. Formatting needs to be consistent for news/journal refs (some are in split format, others aren't). The way that page numbers are given should also be standardized - some are given in the text (as Ref:page numbers), others are given within the reference.
What makes Ref #35 (Patagonianmonsters) a reliable reference?
Ref #36 (Greenstone) is dead linking for me.
Endemic cretinism theory, "(only an abstract is available for the paper,[59] see also [60])" - discussion of abstracts should in the references, not the text. Or is there a reason that there only being an abstract is important to the discussion of H. floresiensis?
Why are a bunch of the entries in the References section missing authors? For example, the July 2008 Smithsonian ref, the September 2008 Spiegel ref, and the July 2004 Nature ref all have easily found authors, but none of them are listed here. These are just examples of missing ones, I didn't check all of them.
Check ENGVAR - I see lots of -ise's and -ize's, skeptic/sceptic, analyze/analyse, etc.
An IP has brought up on the talk page that the Small bodies section says "Semang...of Africa,", which they claim is incorrect and that the tribe is actually from Asia. If our article on the Semang is correct, then the IP is correct, since the article says they are from the Malay Peninsula, which is firmly in Asia.
Small bodies section, "Contradictory evidence has emerged." OK... what is the evidence? Is it important? Do scientists consider it credible?
Laron syndrome hypothesis, "the morphological features of H. floresiensis are essentially indistinguishable from those of Laron syndrome." Which features? Critics argue that the cranial vault is different, so, other than height, what features were being compared by Richards?
See also - what is important about Denisova hominin and the Nage tribe that leads to them being included in the See also section but makes them not notable for inclusion in the article text?
External links are extensive. Could these be trimmed? Links that are already used as references need not be repeated in the external links, and all links should be high value for the reader.

Unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past few years. I haven't fully checked prose or images - if the above are addressed then I will return to the article for a more thorough review of these criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time over the next few months, I'll try to address some of the issues. (I studied some of the rodents found together with H. floresiensis in Liang Bua, if that is of relevance to anything.) Ucucha (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media criteria 3 No problems found. Brad (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the literature on the topic needs to be surveyed and information needs to be incorporated into the article's text. --Malkinann (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for now. Major issues are 1c (I just placed several cn tags and sources need page numbers) and 2c... There are two different styles of citations being used. Brad (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Very little has happened to the article since the beginning of the review. Additional unsourced material has been added, which needs to be dealt with. Ucucha, if you are still planning to work on this, and would like to do so within the remit of FAR, please let us know and the review can be held. However, the article as it stands now is not of FA caliber. Dana boomer (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of late 2011, there is a lot of extra research that has occured. Of course, it is a back-and-forth between the research community and "Morwood's camp" as per usual in any case that "de-speciates" LB1 (Vanucchi 2011 versus Kaifu 2011). Nevertheless, the additional cranio research should be documented in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.66.157 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.