Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Human/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human[edit]

I've been working on this article for a very long time, and I have to say that all the work has finially paid off. Please compare : [1] with Human ;)

Despite the obvious bias of each and every one of the editors (were only human!), we've finially managed to pull together and achieve consensus, in the best example of wiki-spirit I have yet encountered. Even if this articles fails this time, I'm sure it will succeed soon enough, given the wonderful team of editors involved. In case they don't already know, it has been a great pleasure working with them, a highlight of my experience on the wikipedia. Sam Spade 13:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a pleasure working on this article with so many editors and of so many different backgrounds. A great example of a successful collaboration. Look forward to hear what other editors think about the article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I once bumped on this, and is a HUGE article!Support! igordebraga ≠ 16:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Map of skin hue equi.png has no source information, and has a note on the description page saying that "The map's intended use is in articles dealing with the history of the notion of race, and it should not be used as an up-to-date reference"
    2. The image Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg is rather confusing. Polar projections are rarely used, so they're hard to understand, particularly without some visual indication of the projection. The thick lines used obscure large areas of detail - and the drop shadows don't help. There's no indication of what the letters mean. There's no indication of what units the numbers are in. There's no indication of what the different types of line mean.
    3. The image Image:Evoskulls.gif is tagged as "fair use". There are two serious problems with this: (1) Fair use images must indicate the source. (2) Fair use images should never be used in series boxes or other templates.
    4. The image Image:Cavehand.jpg has no source information.
    5. The image Image:Kant.jpg has no source information.
    --Carnildo 19:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we can easilly accomodate all of those concerns. Sam Spade 20:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment—I'm impressed; it certainly is a major article that deserves to be promoted to FA status. I've looked at the lead and added a few inline comments. I'll come back from time to time and work through the article. Tony 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC) But now I'm having second thoughts. Tony 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a major article, a major topic. Just clear up those image concerns. Renata3 12:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth is that Terminology section doing there? Please trash it now; it says nothing that needs to be said, and weakens the impact of the entire article. Tony 13:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Comprehensive, good top-level structure, but has several problems. These come to mind:
    • Too much explaining in detail what things are instead of explaining how they relate to humans. For example, "Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon operating in the three worlds of time, pitch, energy, and under the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody." Completely irrelevant. There are many similar instances throughout the article.
    • The article is full of single-sentence paragraphs, collections of random facts, and sections without internal structure. This particularly applies to the section on "Mind".
    • Replace instances of "Lorem ipsum... (See [also] Foo and Bar.)" with "Lorem ipsum ... foo ... bar ...". Get rid of the "See also" section entirely.
    • Replace the current mixture of inline links and Harvard style citations with footnotes.
    • Remove details. For example:
      • "on October 31, 2000"; "in 2000" would suffice.
      • "Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending of the University of Utah have concluded that"; put the source information in a footnote.
    • Copyediting needed. Skimming the article revealed several instances of erroneous capitalization. I also spotted an instance of "da Vinci" (ew!) - Fredrik | talk 14:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I had some concerns over your concerns.:
      • See also is a very important section which gives all of the related topics in a concise manner in one place. I don't see why it should be deleted. Most FA's have it.
      • What's wrong with details (particularly dates)? This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to have details.
      • Whats wrong with 'da Vinci' (unless it's at the beginning of a sentence)?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nearly always, the "see also" section is used as a sloppy substitute for actually using the article text to explain how other things relate to the topic. In other cases, it's redundant because the content is already covered in the article. Even when the section is appropriate, the links seem to be chosen on random. (This article has bits of each.)
        • Wrong. The purpose is to omit as much detail as possible, leaving only the essential.
        • The name is "Leonardo". Fredrik | talk 10:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel there are some problems with the writing in the intro:
    1. The human mind is "responsible for complex behaviour ..." The brain is responsible for behavior (although "responsible" is an odd word to use), but what's meant by the human "mind" being responsible for it?
    2. "Curiosity and observation have led to ... explanations for consciousness ..." It's not entirely clear what that means.
    3. "Religious perspectives emphasize a soul ... and are often characterized by a belief in ... God ..." Okay, but then it says: "Philosophy ... attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives." Philosophy isn't just about fathoming the depths of religious perspectives, and no other perspectives have been mentioned.
    4. "Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings." But no concepts and feelings have been described, except God and souls, and music and art does more than express the concept of those. And neither of those is a feeling.
    5. [Humans] create complex social structures ... these range from nations and states ... and from the community to the self." Are we saying the "self" is a complex social structure? Yes, it might be, but that's a bold, unsourced claim for the introduction.
    6. "Seeking to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of technology and science as a social, rather than an individual, enterprise." It's a sentence that at first glance seems to have meaning, but when you think about it doesn't. How could one human being on his own have developed technology? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, this is just to clarify that the above are suggestions, not an objection. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is up to standard (not to say you shouldn't take suggestions!) but covers all the bases well enough to deserve this honor. Go for it. HereToHelp 19:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong object.

My query about the Terminology section hasn't been addressed—suddenly, immediately after the lead, the article turns into a dictionary, with capital letters, adjectives, nouns, and etymology; we wander off into the odd phrase about philosophy and religion, with mention of artificial intelligence and extraterrestrials chucked in for good measure. It seems like a trivial distraction before we deal with the biology of the species.

This leads to a more serious problem: the scope of the article, a problem that is already glaringly evident in the lead. The article doesn't quite know what it wants to cover, and seems to tip its hat at a wide range of topics—from music to trade and economics to technology to motivation to spirit—without a systematic or explicit goal. These topics, each of vast scope, is necessarily treated with extreme superficiality (music is allowed two sentences, language seven, and mind five); the connection between them is tenuous, and seems to rest on the fact that humans experience all of them; on that basis, we could include mention of every article in Wikipedia here. In trying to be comprehensive, it turns into fudge, which is only to be expected when the scope has not been strategically delineated. And, given the lack of delineation, it's far from comprehensive and is not of appropriate length (failing FA Criteria 2(b) and 5). Where, for example, is dance, an essential part of human behaviour? Where is mention of the bodily fitness indicators that play such important roles in the reproductive process, e.g., the female breasts and the penis, unique among apes in their size? These are complex matters. There's a multitude of others that beg treatment in the current scope.

It may have been viable to structure the article strictly around what makes humans different from other apes, avoiding the need to dip our toes into religion and economics and space-age technology in a laughably inadequate attempt to explain what it is to be human. Even then, this would have been difficult in a summary article. Or it might have been possible to thematise the human body alone OR cognitive capacity OR emotion OR sexuality, all solely in relation to other apes. That may have been manageable in a WP summary article.

There are factual errors, or at least misleading errors of omission (Criterion 2(c)). Take the treatment of bipedal locomotion:

'Humans exhibit fully bipedal locomotion. This leaves the forelimbs available for manipulating objects using opposable thumbs.'

This ignores the theories that this form of locomotion arose because of the advantages it bestows in high vantage point (seeing prey and predators) and speed (capturing prey and avoiding predators), or even in displaying the sexual organs to the opposite sex.

No, it doesn't. It's not saying humans evolved to be bipedal because having the forelimbs available conveyed an advantage (thought it clearly did); it's simply saying that as a result of the first, the second. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's POV (Criterion 2(d)), for example:

'Human emotion ... can even be said to control human behaviour'. (Not sure about that one.)

'Humans categorise themselves and others in terms of race or ethnicity when it is useful to do so.' (These categories emerge not only because they are 'useful', and useful to whom, we wonder?)

Or: 'Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon operating in the three worlds of time, pitch, energy, and under the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody.' (What happened to timbre? Not all music cultures have harmony. What is the anthropological function of music?)

There are problems of logic and relevance, for example: 'The science of linguistics describes the structure of language and the relationship between languages. There are estimated to be some 6,000 different languages, including sign languages, used today.'

And finally, the language of many sentences needs fixing (Criterion 2(a)). Here are some examples, drawn at random:

  • 'the variation in the total stock of human DNA is minute compared to that of other species'—(compared with) for contrasts.
  • 'long-term habitation of these environments are not yet possible'—(is)
  • 'discrimination by humans based on one's own race'—(their)

The contributors have worked really hard, and I admire that; there are moments of interest, too, and the images are good. But this article should be withdrawn, broken into several closely delineated articles, and rewritten. I'm sorry to have to say this. Tony 15:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose per Carnildo. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 15:43, 23 October 2005 (CDT)
    • I believe all of Carnildo's objections have been addressed. Sam Spade 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I now know more about me, thats just how well this article is written. Getting this article here must have been a monumentious task. TomStar81 05:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article could of course include much more but its outstanding. The flow is a little broken but with so many topics covered it kind of has to be. I personally like the Terminology section, and would keep it although its not completely neccessary. Good job! Falphin 20:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThis is excellent and very concise considering the huge subject it is covering. It should not be broken up, I remember someone once saying here very succinctly "only a fool unravels a cashmere sweater" and I think that quote certainly applies to this comprehensive article. My only quibble (minor) is: is it a little over linked? e.g animal, logic, speech, time, life and God just a few of the perhaps unnecessary (IMO) links. However, in spite of that minor quibble I strongly support this very well written and informative easy to understand page. Giano | talk 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Human/archive1&oldid=1086103399"