![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2015 Q2. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Vanderbilt University/Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This is a great article. All of the necessary facts are there without any bias. The reader has the opportunity to learn about osteological analysis and be grounded in the information that allowed information on Anzick-1 to become accepted fact, but in such a way that they will not be overwhelmed by scientific details.
A few suggestions that came to mind:
Overall, great article!!! In my eyes, your article fulfills the requirements for a good Wikipedia page and does not exhibit any of the warning sings in the 'evaluating wikipedia' pamphlet.
Deitkm ( talk) 04:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this article looks great! As I was reading through the article, I thought it was odd that descriptions of the Osteological Findings were included, but they weren't actually found on the infant remains. For instance, the Skeletal Markers for health and the Cranial Vault Modification sections were included although none of these features were found on the remains.
I hope this information is found to be helpful Ruckers2j ( talk) 22:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The Solutrean Hypothesis is and always has been a minority position. Here it is given equal standing with the mainstream view, and then the well is poisoned by listing one proponent, the author of a novel called "White Apocalypse"! I am going to make some adjustments. 70.75.233.253 ( talk) 05:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The same paragraph refers to mtDNA haplogroup X originating in Europe. I do not have the access to the works cited - do they make this claim? mtDNA X is fairly widespread in West Eurasia and is not thought to originate in Europe AFAIK. It is rather that X is not found in East Asia. 70.75.233.253 ( talk) 05:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
A whole " ==...=="-level section is given to Cranial vault modification only to conclude (in the LAST sentence) that "The shape of Anzick-1's cranial vault revealed no evidence of cultural cranial vault modification." This is silly. IF cvm is to be included, then reduce its rank and don't wait until the end of the section to say that it is not present. But as it is, I see no reason for even mentioning it (an aside simply stating that the skull has no modification might do). After all, many cultures do lots of things that we do not mention being absent from the remains. 87.247.33.223 ( talk) 09:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
If he was a Clovis why the dates of his life were atleast 200 yrs later than the accepted Clovis era? Someone can find a source to explain this discrepancy? 62.11.3.98 ( talk) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
His grave goods were Clovis, and he's close enough in time to known Clovis sites that the 200-year discrepancy could be due either to not having found every Clovis site (which is pretty much a given) or a dating error. Sumanuil ( talk) 00:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2015 Q2. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Vanderbilt University/Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This is a great article. All of the necessary facts are there without any bias. The reader has the opportunity to learn about osteological analysis and be grounded in the information that allowed information on Anzick-1 to become accepted fact, but in such a way that they will not be overwhelmed by scientific details.
A few suggestions that came to mind:
Overall, great article!!! In my eyes, your article fulfills the requirements for a good Wikipedia page and does not exhibit any of the warning sings in the 'evaluating wikipedia' pamphlet.
Deitkm ( talk) 04:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this article looks great! As I was reading through the article, I thought it was odd that descriptions of the Osteological Findings were included, but they weren't actually found on the infant remains. For instance, the Skeletal Markers for health and the Cranial Vault Modification sections were included although none of these features were found on the remains.
I hope this information is found to be helpful Ruckers2j ( talk) 22:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The Solutrean Hypothesis is and always has been a minority position. Here it is given equal standing with the mainstream view, and then the well is poisoned by listing one proponent, the author of a novel called "White Apocalypse"! I am going to make some adjustments. 70.75.233.253 ( talk) 05:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The same paragraph refers to mtDNA haplogroup X originating in Europe. I do not have the access to the works cited - do they make this claim? mtDNA X is fairly widespread in West Eurasia and is not thought to originate in Europe AFAIK. It is rather that X is not found in East Asia. 70.75.233.253 ( talk) 05:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
A whole " ==...=="-level section is given to Cranial vault modification only to conclude (in the LAST sentence) that "The shape of Anzick-1's cranial vault revealed no evidence of cultural cranial vault modification." This is silly. IF cvm is to be included, then reduce its rank and don't wait until the end of the section to say that it is not present. But as it is, I see no reason for even mentioning it (an aside simply stating that the skull has no modification might do). After all, many cultures do lots of things that we do not mention being absent from the remains. 87.247.33.223 ( talk) 09:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
If he was a Clovis why the dates of his life were atleast 200 yrs later than the accepted Clovis era? Someone can find a source to explain this discrepancy? 62.11.3.98 ( talk) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
His grave goods were Clovis, and he's close enough in time to known Clovis sites that the 200-year discrepancy could be due either to not having found every Clovis site (which is pretty much a given) or a dating error. Sumanuil ( talk) 00:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)