873:
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.
42:
819:. 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
685:"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).
872:
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
770:
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
383:"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.
509:
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
353:
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.
47:
126:
80:
778:
There's too many researchers who discuss these 3 species, it'd be too many names and be a really pointless list since it's really the same back and forth argument
122:
52:
107:
70:
793:
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.
230:
707:
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.
99:
963:
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.
409:"A partial jawbone, KNM-WT 16005, was also discovered. They clearly belonged to a robust australopithecine" To the same or different individuals?
823:
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)
811:
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
476:"The discovery of these specimens discredited earlier hypotheses that P. robustus was the ancestor of the much more robust P. boisei" Why?
589:
You could make it clearer in the caption why you are showing the P. boisei mandible. State it was similar or something like that.
222:"Reconstruction of KNM WT 17000" Isn't it just a cast or replica? Reconstruction would imply that missing parts have been added.
533:"including a juvenile specimen, L338y-6. In 2002, a 2.7–2.5 Ma maxilla, EP 1500" Why only give a date for the latter discovery?
75:
156:
115:
17:
977:
That's not necessarily the case, those are just 3 players Wood happen to name while really quickly discussing the debate
659:" from 2.7–2.3 million years ago." Both here and underpaleoecology you should state the geological times it lived during.
268:"Side view of KNM WT 17000" Also, this is surely just a cast, not the actual specimen as implied by the caption?
983:
954:
925:
892:
859:
829:
784:
757:
727:
698:
672:
646:
602:
576:
550:
520:
489:
463:
422:
396:
370:
340:
321:
307:
281:
239:
209:
92:
846:
Though they may seem obvious, you could give the meanings of the original genus name and the specific name.
882:
623:
200:
166:
These things are complicated but fun. Will review soon, at first glance, there's a bunch of duplinks.
979:
950:
921:
888:
855:
825:
780:
753:
723:
694:
668:
642:
598:
572:
546:
516:
485:
459:
418:
392:
366:
336:
303:
277:
235:
205:
435:"and recommended that Paraustralopithecus be invalid" Or more specifically a synonym, but of what?
997:
968:
939:
906:
798:
712:
253:
171:
150:
229:
Missing parts were added (you can see some parts are shiny and the reconstructed parts aren't).
364:
and related confusion was introduced first before going into research history in this instance
323:
photo could be added as a double image with the one under description? Similar to the one in
1001:
987:
972:
958:
943:
929:
910:
896:
863:
833:
802:
788:
761:
731:
716:
702:
676:
650:
606:
580:
554:
524:
493:
467:
426:
400:
374:
344:
311:
285:
257:
243:
213:
175:
160:
919:
and
American palaeoanthropologist William Kimbel are major proponent of monophyly" good?
901:
If it covers the same ground, Id say yeah. If it works there, it should work here, no?
993:
964:
935:
902:
794:
708:
249:
167:
146:
916:
628:
636:
320:
A bit of a shame the only skull isn't shown from the front too, but perhaps this
632:
390:
that's actually just repetition with the last paragraph of
Research history
324:
744:" Whatever the case" Very informal wording for an encyclopaedia.
992:
Ok, could be expanded in the future. Anyway, will promote now.
563:
The synonyms in the taxobox could also get authorities listed.
502:"Ferguson's classification is almost universally ignored" Why?
134:
103:
294:"The Peninj Mandible assigned to P. boisei" Likewise?
692:That's why it starts with "it is argued that"
934:Yes, but who are proponents of the opposite?
275:"Reconstruction of KNM WT 17000 (side view)"
8:
880:Should I just copy/paste some things from
30:
540:year when the site was shown to produce
807:The debate's been going on long before
61:
33:
615:"postcanine megadontia" Which is what?
442:Well in that instance they considered
7:
627:with relatively small incisors and
815:. But, Dr. Johnson does recognize
360:it seemed easier to understand if
24:
450:, so they would have considered
1:
1002:01:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
988:00:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
973:00:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
959:00:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
944:00:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
930:00:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
911:16:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
233:emphasizes the implied areas
18:Talk:Paranthropus aethiopicus
897:16:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
864:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
834:04:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
803:03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
789:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
762:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
732:22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
717:03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
703:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
677:22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
651:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
607:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
581:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
555:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
525:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
494:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
468:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
427:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
401:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
375:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
345:01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
312:03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
286:03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
258:21:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
244:03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
214:03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
176:02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
161:02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
915:Is just "British geologist
1034:
771:kind of glossed over now.
883:Paranthropus robustus
624:postcanine megadontia
201:Paranthropus robustus
980:User:Dunkleosteus77
951:User:Dunkleosteus77
922:User:Dunkleosteus77
889:User:Dunkleosteus77
856:User:Dunkleosteus77
826:User:Dunkleosteus77
781:User:Dunkleosteus77
754:User:Dunkleosteus77
751:Seems formal to me
724:User:Dunkleosteus77
695:User:Dunkleosteus77
669:User:Dunkleosteus77
643:User:Dunkleosteus77
599:User:Dunkleosteus77
573:User:Dunkleosteus77
547:User:Dunkleosteus77
517:User:Dunkleosteus77
486:User:Dunkleosteus77
460:User:Dunkleosteus77
452:Paraustralopithecus
446:to be a synonym of
419:User:Dunkleosteus77
393:User:Dunkleosteus77
367:User:Dunkleosteus77
337:User:Dunkleosteus77
327:under paleobiology.
304:User:Dunkleosteus77
278:User:Dunkleosteus77
236:User:Dunkleosteus77
206:User:Dunkleosteus77
89:
88:
1025:
986:
957:
948:included Walker
928:
895:
862:
832:
787:
760:
730:
721:"it is debated"
701:
675:
649:
605:
579:
553:
523:
492:
466:
456:Australopithecus
448:Australopithecus
425:
399:
373:
343:
310:
284:
242:
212:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1023:
1022:
978:
949:
920:
887:
854:
824:
779:
752:
722:
693:
667:
641:
597:
571:
545:
515:
484:
458:
417:
391:
365:
335:
302:
276:
234:
204:
191:Any cladograms?
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1031:
1029:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
875:
874:
869:
868:
867:
866:
848:
847:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
809:P. aethiopicus
773:
772:
767:
766:
765:
764:
746:
745:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
687:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
661:
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
631:(based on the
617:
616:
612:
611:
610:
609:
591:
590:
586:
585:
584:
583:
565:
564:
560:
559:
558:
557:
542:P. aethiopicus
535:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
504:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
478:
477:
473:
472:
471:
470:
437:
436:
432:
431:
430:
429:
411:
410:
406:
405:
404:
403:
385:
384:
380:
379:
378:
377:
355:
354:
350:
349:
348:
347:
329:
328:
317:
316:
315:
314:
296:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
270:
269:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
224:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
193:
192:
188:
187:
186:
185:
179:
178:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1030:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
918:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
885:
884:
879:
878:
877:
876:
871:
870:
865:
861:
857:
852:
851:
850:
849:
845:
844:
835:
831:
827:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
777:
776:
775:
774:
769:
768:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
747:
743:
742:
733:
729:
725:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
691:
690:
689:
688:
684:
683:
678:
674:
670:
665:
664:
663:
662:
658:
657:
652:
648:
644:
639:
638:
634:
630:
625:
621:
620:
619:
618:
614:
613:
608:
604:
600:
595:
594:
593:
592:
588:
587:
582:
578:
574:
569:
568:
567:
566:
562:
561:
556:
552:
548:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
532:
531:
526:
522:
518:
513:
508:
507:
506:
505:
501:
500:
495:
491:
487:
482:
481:
480:
479:
475:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:a synonym of
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
434:
433:
428:
424:
420:
415:
414:
413:
412:
408:
407:
402:
398:
394:
389:
388:
387:
386:
382:
381:
376:
372:
368:
363:
359:
358:
357:
356:
352:
351:
346:
342:
338:
333:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
319:
318:
313:
309:
305:
300:
299:
298:
297:
293:
292:
287:
283:
279:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
266:
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
220:
215:
211:
207:
203:
202:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
189:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
164:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
984:push to talk
955:push to talk
926:push to talk
917:Bernard Wood
893:push to talk
881:
860:push to talk
830:push to talk
821:Homo erectus
820:
817:Paranthropus
816:
813:Paranthropus
812:
808:
785:push to talk
758:push to talk
728:push to talk
699:push to talk
673:push to talk
647:push to talk
635:) and large
626:
622:"exhibiting
603:push to talk
577:push to talk
551:push to talk
541:
521:push to talk
511:
490:push to talk
464:push to talk
455:
451:
447:
444:Paranthropus
443:
423:push to talk
397:push to talk
371:push to talk
362:Paranthropus
361:
341:push to talk
308:push to talk
282:push to talk
240:push to talk
210:push to talk
199:
198:copied from
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
637:cheek teeth
633:tooth roots
104:visual edit
512:P. walkeri
248:Ah, nice.
231:This image
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
325:Lythronax
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
994:FunkMonk
965:FunkMonk
936:FunkMonk
903:FunkMonk
795:FunkMonk
709:FunkMonk
544:remains
250:FunkMonk
168:FunkMonk
157:contribs
147:FunkMonk
76:Criteria
629:canines
127:history
108:history
94:Article
853:added
483:added
416:added
666:done
596:done
570:done
334:done
301:done
184:fixed
136:Watch
16:<
998:talk
969:talk
940:talk
907:talk
799:talk
713:talk
254:talk
172:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1000:)
971:)
942:)
909:)
886:?
801:)
715:)
640:"
514:"
256:)
174:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
996:(
982:|
967:(
953:|
938:(
924:|
905:(
891:|
858:|
828:|
797:(
783:|
756:|
726:|
711:(
697:|
671:|
645:|
601:|
575:|
549:|
519:|
510:"
488:|
462:|
421:|
395:|
369:|
339:|
306:|
280:|
252:(
238:|
208:|
170:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.