Talk:The Neanderthals Rediscovered/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is about as close to an instant pass as any article I can remember, as it's properly constructed, illustrated, and cited, and very nicely written too. For the sake of decency I'll mention a couple of very minor points.

"Background and publication" seems to cover two, or perhaps three, very different topics: what Neanderthals were; who the authors are; and the publication history of the book. Since these events are separated by some 40,000 years, it seems a bit odd to lump 'em together. I suppose the first two could be called "Context", but that section really shouldn't contain book details.
- I mulled over how to best handle this one for a while, but here split it as "Context" for the first two and "Publication" (further down) for the second two. How do you feel about this? Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
77 illustrations: are all those photographs, or are there maps and diagrams too? I'd certainly hope there were maps, and if I was reading up about suitable books, I'd want to select one that gave me a proper geographic overview as well as the history.
- I've clarified this in the synopsis, including that there were maps. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"if Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans cohabited in Europe": perhaps the verb "cohabited" isn't ideal, as it could mean they slept together rather than coexisted in the same region. Actually there is evidence of interbreeding too, but that's another story.
- Good point. I've rendered it as "lived in Europe at the same time", given "coexisted" is used again just after. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"they took their twin sons home from the hospital they were born in". Maybe the two instances of "they" need a little work.
- I've recast this sentence, hopefully in a clearer way? Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"covers the contemporary understanding of Neanderthals": actually on re-reading this I don't know quite what "contemporary" means here: that the book is out-of-date already, as is slightly implied by the Reception section? or that it is nicely up-to-date, having taken in the advances made between 2007 and 2013? Perhaps this could be expanded and clarified slightly.
- hm. It's not so much out-of-date as "no longer right on the cutting edge", but I've reworded somewhat. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I always stumble over "predated" (... predation) and perhaps other readers do too. After all, both groups ate meat, and cannibalism is mentioned ...
- Have placed a hyphen :) Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Both authors had published books previously; Papagianni was an editor of the 2008 archaeological compilation Time and Change: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on the Long-Term in Hunter-Gatherer Societies[10] and Morse the author of How the Celts Came to Britain, published in 2005 by Tempus Publishing, which was selected as one of The Times Literary Supplement's Books of the Year.[11][12]" ... is rather a long sentence. Maybe split it?
- Split, though I'm not entirely happy with either the original sentence or this version (it was certainly very long, but feels a little choppy now). I think it's passable, though. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe wikilink Native Americans (there is quite a choice of articles to link here, actually).
- Given the context of a lot of that literature I think Native Americans in the United States is the closest target, so I've linked that one. I was a little surprised to find, while checking, there's no real standalone coverage outside the noble savage article itself about Native American portrayals in literature (rather than Native American literature itself) -- except Native Americans in German popular culture. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The images are both suitably licensed.

Ref [29] needs its newspaper parameter.
- Have fixed that detail now. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This is a fine article and I hope to award it a GA shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the prompt review and commentary! I believe these are all addressed. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.