A bit of a shame the only skull isn't shown from the front too, but perhaps this
[1] photo could be added as a double image with the one under description? Similar to the one in
Lythronax under paleobiology.
It seems a bit counter to most other such articles that you give classification before taxonomic history. Would probably be nice if it was consistent across articles and that it started with taxonomy.
"P. aethiopicus is only confidently identified from the skull KNM WT 17000 and a few jaws and isolated teeth" This would also logically be in the history section rather than classification, another argument to switching the structure around.
"Ferguson's classification is almost universally ignored" Why?
Ferguson has a long history of making up new species names for single specimens with little justification. I remember Walker remarked in his book something like "He's always doing stuff like this" when talking about "P. walkeri" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)reply
"including a juvenile specimen, L338y-6.[10] In 2002, a 2.7–2.5 Ma maxilla, EP 1500" Why only give a date for the latter discovery?
"However, it is argued that Paranthropus is an invalid grouping" You state this as if it's a fact, but in the article body you indicate it is udner debate.- So the intro should have less secure wording and state only some researchers argue this (if that's the case, otherwise the title should be moved).
But that's not the same, "it is argued" implies that this is the main hypothesis, when the article body makes clear this is not necessarily the case.
FunkMonk (
talk)
03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I think you need to get much more into the nitty gritty of who exactly argues for what classification, when and why. It is a very short article now, and since most that has been written about it is probably taxonomic stuff, the article should reflect this and give much weight to it, where it seems kind of glossed over now.
We need some key players and revisions mentioned then, I don't think the current hand waviness of that section is justifiable when the article is so short.
FunkMonk (
talk)
03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The debate's been going on long before P. aethiopicus was even discovered, and it mainly revolves around the definition of the word "genus". So it'd just be "Dr. Smith said that he doesn't accept Paranthropus. But, Dr. Johnson does recognize Paranthropus. But, Dr. Gregorio does not recognize it. But, Dr. Stephano does recognize it. But, Dr. Zhivago does not recognize it. But..." forever and ever, and it's pointless because new arguments aren't brought up, it's just an unsolvable back-and-forth like. It's like the argument for either trying to divvy up Homo erectus or just have one really long-running species (and the reasons for either are quite arbitrary and boil down to the author's personal preference) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk04:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Though they may seem obvious, you could give the meanings of the original genus name and the specific name.
Ok, I still see two major issues that I don't think can be brushed off so easily. That the article is structured very differently from other similar articles in having classification first, while readers would expect to read about the discovery first, and the complete lack of date and authors in the classification section. I'm not sure I can pass this if these two things are not dealt with, they are kind of deal breakers when it comes to structure and context. You don't have to write classification as a back and forth between every single paper ever written, just give the proponents of each scheme and when their key studies were published. Alternatively, we can ask for a second opinion.
Cool. So it seems there are more people for than against? The reader wouldn't have known unless you spelled it out, so it is definitely helpful.
FunkMonk (
talk)
00:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)reply