Homo rudolfensis has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 17, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in Kenyan English and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Homo rudolfensis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 August 2012. |
Please verify if pub year of ref. 16 (Tattersall, I. (2019). “Classification and phylogeny in human evolution”. Ludus Vitalis. 9 (15): 139–140.) is correct. The referred article seems to be from 2001, not 2019. My apologies if this is not the proper way to suggest a possible improvement: I'm very new to editing in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.maryniak ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs of this entry are identical with the first two paragraphs on Homo rudolfensis on this another site: something to do with the Smithsonian, perhaps. [1].
Does this constitute a breach of copyright? I don't know the author, perhaps they are one and the same.
Philip Lawton
p.d.lawton@dur.ac.uk
The article mentions a sophisticated sweating system, hair length, and noticeable whites of the eyes as characteristics not present in Homo rudolfensis. While it is perhaps unlikely that H. Rudolfensis would have exhibited these characteristics, is it not impossible to make such a determination given that the only existing evidence from this time consists of skeletal remains, as well as stone tools and a few footprints?
Charles Burgess
cb834214@albany.edu
I think that both of these articles will always be rather small and, since one is talking about a specific find regarding the other, should be merged together here. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I edited out the whites of the eyes, sophisticated sweating system, and naked apperance comments, as they are speculative, and there is no evidence to support them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rafe Kelley ( talk • contribs) .
Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. There are other places where this can be debated. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This skull has been haunting me for a while. Its name keeps popping up on creationst websites. Many of them claim scientists deliberately changed the dates from the originally estimated age of 3 million years simply to make it fit the evolution theory better. The fact that it was discovered under "impossibly" old vulcanic ashes is also brought up often. One instance of such incident can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp (scroll down to the segment titled "Bad dates", paragraph 3) I have been wondering what is the scientific response to these creationist accusations. In what way are the later estimations more accurate than the 3 million years, and how are the "old" ashes explained? And most importantly, should there be a segment in this article regarding this controversy, similar to the Nylon-eating bacteria? Or does this debate perhaps belong in the Creation-evolution controversy article? - Henry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.214.9.63 ( talk) 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC).{{subst:image source|Image:1470f.jpg)) Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:1470f.jpg
|
Image:1470f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
added external links 71.232.93.212 ( talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the 2012 fossil find section there is a mention to KNM-ER 1802, but there is no explanation in the article about that fossil.-- Cattus talk 20:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I've added something.-- Cattus talk 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy.[4] Bromage said his team's reconstruction included biological knowledge not known at the time of the skull's discovery, of the precise relationship between the sizes of eyes, ears, and mouth in mammals.[4] A newer publication by Bromage has since further downsized the cranial capacity estimate from 752 cm³ to 700 cm³.[5] Jhall251 ( talk) 14:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Not one word about the fact that some have referred this species to Kenyanthropus? I don't have time to elaborate on this myself, but it should definitely be mentioned. There are 64 hits for "kenyanthropus rudolfensis" (with the quotation marks) on Google Scholar. David Marjanović ( talk) 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: JurassicClassic767 ( talk · contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Quite interesting article to review and read.
JurassicClassic767 (
talk |
contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Lead section:
Research history:
The rest of the section sits OK, so we'll move onto Anatomy once this is finished. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Anatomy:
The rest of the Anatomy section is well-structured/well-written, so no other changes need to be made. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 03:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Culture:
Ok, I think it's irrelevant if we continue the discussion about the sentence fragment above. Therefore, after reading the whole article again, I'd say the result is: . Congratulations and good job! Now I guess I should start passing this then! JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 10:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Homo rudolfensis has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 17, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in Kenyan English and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Homo rudolfensis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 August 2012. |
Please verify if pub year of ref. 16 (Tattersall, I. (2019). “Classification and phylogeny in human evolution”. Ludus Vitalis. 9 (15): 139–140.) is correct. The referred article seems to be from 2001, not 2019. My apologies if this is not the proper way to suggest a possible improvement: I'm very new to editing in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.maryniak ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs of this entry are identical with the first two paragraphs on Homo rudolfensis on this another site: something to do with the Smithsonian, perhaps. [1].
Does this constitute a breach of copyright? I don't know the author, perhaps they are one and the same.
Philip Lawton
p.d.lawton@dur.ac.uk
The article mentions a sophisticated sweating system, hair length, and noticeable whites of the eyes as characteristics not present in Homo rudolfensis. While it is perhaps unlikely that H. Rudolfensis would have exhibited these characteristics, is it not impossible to make such a determination given that the only existing evidence from this time consists of skeletal remains, as well as stone tools and a few footprints?
Charles Burgess
cb834214@albany.edu
I think that both of these articles will always be rather small and, since one is talking about a specific find regarding the other, should be merged together here. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I edited out the whites of the eyes, sophisticated sweating system, and naked apperance comments, as they are speculative, and there is no evidence to support them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rafe Kelley ( talk • contribs) .
Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. There are other places where this can be debated. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This skull has been haunting me for a while. Its name keeps popping up on creationst websites. Many of them claim scientists deliberately changed the dates from the originally estimated age of 3 million years simply to make it fit the evolution theory better. The fact that it was discovered under "impossibly" old vulcanic ashes is also brought up often. One instance of such incident can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp (scroll down to the segment titled "Bad dates", paragraph 3) I have been wondering what is the scientific response to these creationist accusations. In what way are the later estimations more accurate than the 3 million years, and how are the "old" ashes explained? And most importantly, should there be a segment in this article regarding this controversy, similar to the Nylon-eating bacteria? Or does this debate perhaps belong in the Creation-evolution controversy article? - Henry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.214.9.63 ( talk) 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC).{{subst:image source|Image:1470f.jpg)) Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:1470f.jpg
|
Image:1470f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
added external links 71.232.93.212 ( talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the 2012 fossil find section there is a mention to KNM-ER 1802, but there is no explanation in the article about that fossil.-- Cattus talk 20:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I've added something.-- Cattus talk 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy.[4] Bromage said his team's reconstruction included biological knowledge not known at the time of the skull's discovery, of the precise relationship between the sizes of eyes, ears, and mouth in mammals.[4] A newer publication by Bromage has since further downsized the cranial capacity estimate from 752 cm³ to 700 cm³.[5] Jhall251 ( talk) 14:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Not one word about the fact that some have referred this species to Kenyanthropus? I don't have time to elaborate on this myself, but it should definitely be mentioned. There are 64 hits for "kenyanthropus rudolfensis" (with the quotation marks) on Google Scholar. David Marjanović ( talk) 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: JurassicClassic767 ( talk · contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Quite interesting article to review and read.
JurassicClassic767 (
talk |
contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Lead section:
Research history:
The rest of the section sits OK, so we'll move onto Anatomy once this is finished. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Anatomy:
The rest of the Anatomy section is well-structured/well-written, so no other changes need to be made. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 03:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Culture:
Ok, I think it's irrelevant if we continue the discussion about the sentence fragment above. Therefore, after reading the whole article again, I'd say the result is: . Congratulations and good job! Now I guess I should start passing this then! JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 10:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)