"… and the leading authority on primate anatomy during the 20th century." (underline mine) this is a pretty big statement for the lead sentence. Couldn't we change "the" to "a"? This sentence should also say what nationality he was.
I was going with what the source said on this one. And, to be honest, after all that I've seen in terms of primate anatomy books, I'm really not sure if anyone has ever stepped up and succeeded him. But if you feel more comfortable with "a" over "the", you may change it. Otherwise, I've added his nationality to the lead sentence. – VisionHolder «
talk »05:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I hope you're okay with this... I think Wikipedia should stick to giving superlatives in the lead on things like mountain heights or sea depths, not about who was the best in a scientific field.
Sasata (
talk)
18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Not provided. All I had were the sources listed. As far as I can tell, nothing else is written about his life or achievements. Oh... and speaking of the sources, were you the one who sent them to me? If so, could you please send them again? The PDFs I worked from have mysteriously disappeared from both my email and my hard drive, and it's driving me nuts! I've already asked Ucucha, and he didn't send them to me, and you're the only other person I ask such favors of. – VisionHolder «
talk »05:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"…wrote 248 publications, all articles or chapters in books…" maybe "articles" could be linked to
scientific literature or explained for the reader who might not understand the significance of "article" by itself.
I'd like to see a "Selected works" section with some of his better known works, like the titles of his eight-volume series, his first and last publications, and anything else you think that exemplifies his academic output
I was going to do this since once of the references supposedly listed his entire list of publications by year, but unfortunately the PDF cut off after his first publication. I have a feeling that in order to get the list, we'd have to go scan the original. – VisionHolder «
talk »05:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
After looking at what Ucucha sent me, it must have been in the Day article... although I still have my doubts. I really wish I could remember where I saw it. – VisionHolder «
talk »22:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Alright... we now have the list. It spans 9 pages in the journal article. The authors of the list note: "Several brief notes and nonscientific publications have knowingly been omitted from the foregoing list. All references have been checked against the original sources." The question now stands: How do you suggest adding the material? The publications are so old that I don't think any of the newer systems for checking citation counts will help determine the most heavily cited works. Should I list everything, or should I start a new list article? – VisionHolder «
talk »19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Good question, I've thought about this myself for articles on mycologists, where a list of publications would overwhelm the comparatively little biographical info available on the person. But then I worry that a list page like that might veer into
WP:NOT, and work instead on something else :) I think the list is fine as is.
Sasata (
talk)
18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"Despite its breadth and depth, the series was never completed." "Despite" doesn't really work as a connector.. I would tend to think, if anything, because of its breadth and depth, the series wasn't completed (know what I mean?)
I've added another reference about the expectation for the final volume to be published, but don't know how to proceed from here. It appears it was never published. – VisionHolder «
talk »19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"Also, the Primate Society of Great Britain named their Osman Hill Medal award after him." Work "Also" is unnecessary. What are the criteria for this award?
I have added everything Ucucha found, although the IUCN considers them all as possible subspecies. Given that MSW3 is getting a little dated, I went with the IUCN taxonomy. The taxa listed by the IUCN are peer-reviewed before listing and assessing. – VisionHolder «
talk »19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Several actually: Varecia variegata editorum (Osman Hill, 1953) [still a valid subspecies; perhaps described in volume 1 of Osman's magnum opus?]; a couple of Loris names: nordicus Hill, 1933 (=L. l. grandis); grandis Hill & Phillips, 1932 [now Loris lydekkerianus grandis]; nycticeboides Hill, 1942 [now L. lydekkerianus nycticeboides]; and a macaque: opisthomelas Hill, 1942 (=Macaca sinica sinica).
Hill, W. C. O. 1933. A monograph on the genus Loris with an account of the external, cranial and dental characters of the genus; a revision of the known forms; and the description of a new form from Northern Ceylon. Ceylon J. Sci. (Spolia Zeylanica) XVIII(1): 89–132.
Hill, W. C. O. 1942. The slender loris of the Horton Plains, Ceylon, Loris tardigradus nycticeboides subsp. nov. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 43: 73–78.
Hill, W. C. O. and W. W. A. Phillips. 1932. A new race of slender loris from the highlands of Ceylon. Ceylon J. Sci. (Spolia Zeylanica) XVII(2): 109–122.
Hill, W.C.O. 1942. The highland macaque of Ceylon. J. Bombay Nat. Hist, Soc., 43 : 402-406.
This is all I could find, and very likely all the extant forms he named. He may also have named some extinct forms. All in all, these are five names, of which currently three are considered valid subspecies and two synonyms.
Ucucha21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, and already sent to VH. It's only half a page, though (which I guess is why VH didn't need to cite it for anything).
Ucucha23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I also can't access this:
Title: William Charles Osman Hill--an appreciation.
I'm not sure how or where to add the Bigfoot stuff. I hope to comb Google Books today, and if enough extra tidbits start to turn up, maybe I'll have a decent amount of material to embed it with. – VisionHolder «
talk »19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Quote grabbed from an unreliable website, but sounds interesting: "William Charles Osman-Hill an anthropologist who wrote "Nittaewo--An unsolved problem of Ceylon" (Loris. 1945), proposed that the race of savage dwarves might have been isolated species of pithecanthropus or Java man." Anything more you could find out about this? I'd like to see more in the article about what kind of discoveries he made, or what theories he came up with.
Sasata (
talk)
00:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the information and sorry for not doing more research through Google Books. I've had mixed success with it at best in the past, but I will have to start visiting it more often from now on. I will try to add more material over the next week, if that's okay. I'm also assuming that neither of you have access to the Day article? I remember working off of it or the source, but I can't find it for the life of me. – VisionHolder «
talk »04:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Alright... a full section on cryptozoology has been added. I did find a few other interesting things, such as his hypothesis that Native Americans were descended from Europeans (see
here), but I wouldn't know where to put it, plus I don't feel it would be fair to focus only on his defunct hypotheses because of how odd they sound by today's standards. Also, he did make some interesting comments about ethnicity (see
here and
here), but again, the I'm not sure where to fit this little blurb into the article. As always, I'm open for suggestions. I am also awaiting feedback on how much of a "Selected publications" section to create (see above). – VisionHolder «
talk »06:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for making the additions, they are interesting and make the article more complete. I noticed you redlinked Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, are you planning on working on that too? Anyway, the article meets GA criteria and I'll pass it now.
Sasata (
talk)
18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I would like to write about the books someday, but in order to do so I'm afraid I would need access to a lot of old book reviews I saw snippets of on Google Books, and I'm not sure what you guys would have access to them. And without access to the books themselves, that makes it even harder. And by the way, you never answered my question about the "Selected publications" section. How do you recommend developing that now that I have the 9-page list of his most noteworthy works? Create a separate list article, pick out what I think was most enlightening, or try to fit it all in? – VisionHolder «
talk »22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I did answer above somewhere in the middle. I can send you all the book reviews I can access, but yeah, I would be more difficult to write the article without the books themselves. Still, you could start something in a sandbox and finish up later when you get your hands on the books. Or, we could collaborate, since I have the books at my library.
Sasata (
talk)
23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry I missed your reply. Just so you know, I'm not satisfied with the current state of the "Selected publications" section, so I will probably take the middle ground and pick some of the articles/books that sound most important. I might even run the list by Colin Groves (if he has time) and have him pick out the most influential works. As for collaborating on the article about the 8-volume set, it would be my honor to work with you on it. However, let's aim for the summer at this point. I just wish I could find some surviving family members, or whoever holds the copyright, and get permission to use some of Yvonne's amazing artwork. – VisionHolder «
talk »23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"… and the leading authority on primate anatomy during the 20th century." (underline mine) this is a pretty big statement for the lead sentence. Couldn't we change "the" to "a"? This sentence should also say what nationality he was.
I was going with what the source said on this one. And, to be honest, after all that I've seen in terms of primate anatomy books, I'm really not sure if anyone has ever stepped up and succeeded him. But if you feel more comfortable with "a" over "the", you may change it. Otherwise, I've added his nationality to the lead sentence. – VisionHolder «
talk »05:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I hope you're okay with this... I think Wikipedia should stick to giving superlatives in the lead on things like mountain heights or sea depths, not about who was the best in a scientific field.
Sasata (
talk)
18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Not provided. All I had were the sources listed. As far as I can tell, nothing else is written about his life or achievements. Oh... and speaking of the sources, were you the one who sent them to me? If so, could you please send them again? The PDFs I worked from have mysteriously disappeared from both my email and my hard drive, and it's driving me nuts! I've already asked Ucucha, and he didn't send them to me, and you're the only other person I ask such favors of. – VisionHolder «
talk »05:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"…wrote 248 publications, all articles or chapters in books…" maybe "articles" could be linked to
scientific literature or explained for the reader who might not understand the significance of "article" by itself.
I'd like to see a "Selected works" section with some of his better known works, like the titles of his eight-volume series, his first and last publications, and anything else you think that exemplifies his academic output
I was going to do this since once of the references supposedly listed his entire list of publications by year, but unfortunately the PDF cut off after his first publication. I have a feeling that in order to get the list, we'd have to go scan the original. – VisionHolder «
talk »05:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
After looking at what Ucucha sent me, it must have been in the Day article... although I still have my doubts. I really wish I could remember where I saw it. – VisionHolder «
talk »22:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Alright... we now have the list. It spans 9 pages in the journal article. The authors of the list note: "Several brief notes and nonscientific publications have knowingly been omitted from the foregoing list. All references have been checked against the original sources." The question now stands: How do you suggest adding the material? The publications are so old that I don't think any of the newer systems for checking citation counts will help determine the most heavily cited works. Should I list everything, or should I start a new list article? – VisionHolder «
talk »19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Good question, I've thought about this myself for articles on mycologists, where a list of publications would overwhelm the comparatively little biographical info available on the person. But then I worry that a list page like that might veer into
WP:NOT, and work instead on something else :) I think the list is fine as is.
Sasata (
talk)
18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"Despite its breadth and depth, the series was never completed." "Despite" doesn't really work as a connector.. I would tend to think, if anything, because of its breadth and depth, the series wasn't completed (know what I mean?)
I've added another reference about the expectation for the final volume to be published, but don't know how to proceed from here. It appears it was never published. – VisionHolder «
talk »19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"Also, the Primate Society of Great Britain named their Osman Hill Medal award after him." Work "Also" is unnecessary. What are the criteria for this award?
I have added everything Ucucha found, although the IUCN considers them all as possible subspecies. Given that MSW3 is getting a little dated, I went with the IUCN taxonomy. The taxa listed by the IUCN are peer-reviewed before listing and assessing. – VisionHolder «
talk »19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Several actually: Varecia variegata editorum (Osman Hill, 1953) [still a valid subspecies; perhaps described in volume 1 of Osman's magnum opus?]; a couple of Loris names: nordicus Hill, 1933 (=L. l. grandis); grandis Hill & Phillips, 1932 [now Loris lydekkerianus grandis]; nycticeboides Hill, 1942 [now L. lydekkerianus nycticeboides]; and a macaque: opisthomelas Hill, 1942 (=Macaca sinica sinica).
Hill, W. C. O. 1933. A monograph on the genus Loris with an account of the external, cranial and dental characters of the genus; a revision of the known forms; and the description of a new form from Northern Ceylon. Ceylon J. Sci. (Spolia Zeylanica) XVIII(1): 89–132.
Hill, W. C. O. 1942. The slender loris of the Horton Plains, Ceylon, Loris tardigradus nycticeboides subsp. nov. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 43: 73–78.
Hill, W. C. O. and W. W. A. Phillips. 1932. A new race of slender loris from the highlands of Ceylon. Ceylon J. Sci. (Spolia Zeylanica) XVII(2): 109–122.
Hill, W.C.O. 1942. The highland macaque of Ceylon. J. Bombay Nat. Hist, Soc., 43 : 402-406.
This is all I could find, and very likely all the extant forms he named. He may also have named some extinct forms. All in all, these are five names, of which currently three are considered valid subspecies and two synonyms.
Ucucha21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, and already sent to VH. It's only half a page, though (which I guess is why VH didn't need to cite it for anything).
Ucucha23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I also can't access this:
Title: William Charles Osman Hill--an appreciation.
I'm not sure how or where to add the Bigfoot stuff. I hope to comb Google Books today, and if enough extra tidbits start to turn up, maybe I'll have a decent amount of material to embed it with. – VisionHolder «
talk »19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Quote grabbed from an unreliable website, but sounds interesting: "William Charles Osman-Hill an anthropologist who wrote "Nittaewo--An unsolved problem of Ceylon" (Loris. 1945), proposed that the race of savage dwarves might have been isolated species of pithecanthropus or Java man." Anything more you could find out about this? I'd like to see more in the article about what kind of discoveries he made, or what theories he came up with.
Sasata (
talk)
00:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the information and sorry for not doing more research through Google Books. I've had mixed success with it at best in the past, but I will have to start visiting it more often from now on. I will try to add more material over the next week, if that's okay. I'm also assuming that neither of you have access to the Day article? I remember working off of it or the source, but I can't find it for the life of me. – VisionHolder «
talk »04:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Alright... a full section on cryptozoology has been added. I did find a few other interesting things, such as his hypothesis that Native Americans were descended from Europeans (see
here), but I wouldn't know where to put it, plus I don't feel it would be fair to focus only on his defunct hypotheses because of how odd they sound by today's standards. Also, he did make some interesting comments about ethnicity (see
here and
here), but again, the I'm not sure where to fit this little blurb into the article. As always, I'm open for suggestions. I am also awaiting feedback on how much of a "Selected publications" section to create (see above). – VisionHolder «
talk »06:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for making the additions, they are interesting and make the article more complete. I noticed you redlinked Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, are you planning on working on that too? Anyway, the article meets GA criteria and I'll pass it now.
Sasata (
talk)
18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I would like to write about the books someday, but in order to do so I'm afraid I would need access to a lot of old book reviews I saw snippets of on Google Books, and I'm not sure what you guys would have access to them. And without access to the books themselves, that makes it even harder. And by the way, you never answered my question about the "Selected publications" section. How do you recommend developing that now that I have the 9-page list of his most noteworthy works? Create a separate list article, pick out what I think was most enlightening, or try to fit it all in? – VisionHolder «
talk »22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I did answer above somewhere in the middle. I can send you all the book reviews I can access, but yeah, I would be more difficult to write the article without the books themselves. Still, you could start something in a sandbox and finish up later when you get your hands on the books. Or, we could collaborate, since I have the books at my library.
Sasata (
talk)
23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry I missed your reply. Just so you know, I'm not satisfied with the current state of the "Selected publications" section, so I will probably take the middle ground and pick some of the articles/books that sound most important. I might even run the list by Colin Groves (if he has time) and have him pick out the most influential works. As for collaborating on the article about the 8-volume set, it would be my honor to work with you on it. However, let's aim for the summer at this point. I just wish I could find some surviving family members, or whoever holds the copyright, and get permission to use some of Yvonne's amazing artwork. – VisionHolder «
talk »23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply