Peking Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Peking Man/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential fossils in anthropology, the Peking Man, the interpretation of which was tied to the tumultuous historical developments of 20th century China. This is part of my ongoing overhaul of prehistoric humans, and so far only Solo Man and Homo antecessor have gotten to FA status. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text

• There are a lot of images in this article, resulting in sandwiching and including galleries

• File:Skull_pekingman.jpg: is this a photograph or an original artwork? If the former, where was it taken? If the latter, how is it known to be accurate? Ditto File:Sinathropus_pekinensis.jpg

It's a photograph uploaded to Flickr, doesn't say where it was taken Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Zhoukoudian_65952-Peking-Man-Site_(28097398294).jpg: China's freedom of panorama requires additional information to be provided about the original work. Ditto File:Zhoukoudian_Pachycrocuta.jpg
• File:Hypothetical_sketch_of_the_monophylitic_origin_and_of_the_diffusion_of_the_12_varieties_of_men_from_Lemuria_over_the_earth_LCCN2014649358.jpg: what is the author's date of death?

1919 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Pithecanthropus-erectus.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death

replaced Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Zhoukoudian_mural_fire.jpg: what's the copyright status of the original work? Ditto File:Zhoukoudian_mural_hunting_party_2.jpg, File:Zhoukoudian_mural_hunting_party.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reach out to UNESCO Beijing Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I'll remove all the artwork from Zhoukoudian Museum Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a drive-by comment regarding the number of images. The number of images doesn't bother me. I'm not seeing any sandwiching on my machine, but prior conversations on this topic have led me to understand that some browsers use layout strategies and/or default fonts that make sandwiching more likely. Be that as it may, I'd drop File:The site of the first discovered skull cap of Peking Man.JPG. It's a picture of a plaque on a rock, and as such, doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding on the article's subject. Likewise with File:Ash layer of the ape hall, Peking Man Site.JPG, although that does at least attempt to show something of archeological significance (the ash layer). I'm also not seeing the value of File:Zhoukoudian Pachycrocuta.jpg. So if you're looking for images to cut, those are the ones I would consider. All of the other images in the article seem useful, so if they're really causing a layout problem, perhaps move them to a gallery or some such rather than deleting them. RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, the article looks fantastic! Excellent illustrations; broad coverage; clean format; good prose; plenty of citations. The article was inviting, and a pleasure to read.

• Section name "Further Reading" is confusing because five of the seven items are used as sources (of citations). Only two items (Aczel and Jia) are truly "further reading" because they not used as sources. For example the book by Schamlzer is in that section, but is also used as a source by several citations e.g. [123] Schamlzer 2008, p. 154. Suggest either break into "Sources" and "Further Reading" sections; or eliminate the Jia and Aczel items, and rename "Further Reading" to "Sources". [FYI: I ran a tool that shows if reference items are linked-to by a citation, or not]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Section "See Also" - Personally, I think See Also sections are distracting and give the impression that the article is not finished, and the editor perfunctorily threw a bunch of links, simply for the sake of having an additional section. If the articles are relevant to Peking Man, then they should already be linked elsewhere in the article, either (a) in body text; or (b) in the topic bars at the bottom of the article (e.g. somewhere within "Human Evolution" topic bar). Many FA quality articles do not have "See Also" sections. I'm not saying the See Also section is a show stopper for FA; just giving my opinion.

I enjoy a nice See Also section when I'm going down a wiki rabbit hole Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with "See also" sections but I've started to prefer calling it "Further reading" while being totally unclear on why MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:FURTHER draw a distinction between the two. In any case, WP:FACR includes "follows the style guidelines", not "follows the subset of the style guidelines a particular reviewer happens to like". RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers have to work too hard: Despite what Charles Darwin had hypothesized in his 1871 Descent of Man, many late-19th century evolutionary naturalists postulated that Asia (instead of Africa) was the birthplace of humankind,... We should not assume that readers know what Darwin hypothesized . Yes, careful readers may be able to deduce that he hypothesized Africa (I am correct?), but why make readers stop the flow and do the calculus? Suggest: Darwin, in his 1871 Descent of Man,hypothesized that mankind originated in Africa. Despite that, many late-19th century evolutionary naturalists postulated that Asia was the birthplace of humankind, because ... or something like that.

fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot find a place in the article that lists all locations that Peking Man fossils have been found. The lead says Its fossils have been found in a cave some 50 km (31 mi) southwest of Beijing ... but is that the only location? If it is, that should be emphasized, perhaps in the lead. If there are multiple locations, then the fact there are multiple locations should be mentioned in the lead and all the locations should be listed (either in Lead or in the body). If the list is already in the article, that is cool ... I just cannot find the list right now.

A list of other Chinese H. erectus sites is in the Mao and post-Mao eras section right next to the map where they're all plotted. As explained in the Classification section, these other sites can be included in H. erectus pekinensis, but the name is normally reserved for just the Zhoukoudian site Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Caption of pic Reconstruction of the first Peking Man skullcap Suggest adding a couple of words helping non-expert readers distinguish the fossil from the reconstructed parts. What is obvious to experts and WP editors may not be obvious to casual readers around the world. If the caption would become too large, consider putting the additional text into a footnote.

I've added that the jawbone is hypothetical, but I'm not sure what else to say about the skullcap other than anything the same color as the jawbone wasn't preserved in the original specimen Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Caption of pic Reconstruction of the first Peking Man skullcap I'm comparing this photo to the illustrations in the "Gallery" lower ... if "first photo" skull is "Skull I" in the Gallery consider adding the identifier "Skull I" to the "first skull" photo caption (e.g. "... designated Skull I"),

I'm realizing now the Commons description is wrong, that's clearly Skull XI. Good eye Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote marks? Peking Man characterises the "classic" H. erectus anatomy. Can the quote marks be removed? Quote marks should be used sparingly. In this case, the reader will not know what the quotes signify, if anything. Is the editor quoting a source? Which source? Is "classic" a special word in paleontology? If so: the article should define the term here in the article (or link to WP article which does). Is this a WP:Scare quotes? ... those are discouraged. FWIW, I cannot tell what purpose the quotes are serving in this sentence. Suggest eliminating the quote marks and add some words that plainly convey whatever the quote marks were intended to convey.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Term "Sinanthrope" not defined? : "The Sinanthrope has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn,.... " Article needs to explain term "Sinanthrope" to reader ... especially because the genus was renamed later to Homo erectus (is that correct?) Because it is within a quote, consider: : "The Sinanthrope [Peking Man] has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn,.... " or : "The Sinanthrope [Peking Man skull I] has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn,.... "

The name Sinanthropus is already brought up by this point in the article. I've added the name to the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Paleontologists have been criticized, justifiably, for sometimes blurring the distinction between original fossils and reconstructions extrapolated from fossils. This article does a pretty good job of stating, for each illustration, if it is a fossil or reconstruction. One place that could be better is pic caption: Weidenreich's reconstruction of Humerus II (left) and Femur IV (right) it is not clear which parts are the original vs the fossil. The reader can go to the Gallery to see the fossil, and jump their eyes up and down to compare, but that is not ideal. Is there a better illustration that distinguishes fossil parts vs reconstructed parts?

That's the only reconstruction Weidenreich published, you can see where the border lines between real and reconstructed are drawn near the heads Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Red link? that converge into a triangle (Ward's triangle), which... Red links are off-putting in FA articles. Is it likely that an article for Ward's triangle will get created in the next few years? Is it possible to either (a) create a stub for that article? (b) remove the red by eliminating the link?

I'm a little surprised it's not already an article, it's the weakest part of the femoral head and used to assess the progression of osteoporosis and the risk of a hip fracture Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Eliminate red-link in author name "Ciochon": Displayed in citation [76] at Zaim, Y; Ciochon, R. L.; Polanski, J. M ... The raw text is here: {{cite journal | last1 = Zaim|first1=Y|last2=Ciochon|first2=R. L.|author2-link=Russel Ciochon|..... I think the "author2-link=Russel Ciochon" needs to be removed, but you should verify that. Correction: looks like a spelling mistake, should be: Russell Ciochon

fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That is all I have for now. It is a superb article! Ping me if you want me to make another pass. Noleander (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander: how's it looking now? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dunkleosteus77: Citation: Nonetheless, Weidenreich continued using "Sinanthropus" (and "Pithecanthropus") until his death in 1948[52] because he saw it "just as a name without any 'generic' or 'specific' meaning, or in other words, as a 'latinization' of Peking Man." The foonote [52] should be at the end of the sentence, unless there is a compelling reason to put it in the middle, esp since there is no footnote at the end.

that quote is from Le Gros Clark (well, he's quoting Weidenreich), ref 52 doesn't have it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarify: ... as had been broadly recommended by various priors. I don't know what "priors" means here. Can you add a WP link, or some words explaining what it is?

Prior as in before, like "prior to" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Phrasing could be better: The contributions of Chinese scientists during the Mao era were under much suspicion in the West for fears of propagandic contamination. Phrase "under much suspicion " is jarring. Maybe During the Mao era, Western scientists suspected that contributions from Chinese scientists were being distorted for propaganda purposes. or something like that.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Who? To counter the declining interest in Eastern palaeoanthropology, many Chinese scientists... Not clear whose interest was declining. Were young Chinese scientists deciding to not enter the field of paleontology? Or were Western scientists ignoring aritcles/results from Chinese scientists?

from the focus of anthropological interest shifting from China to Africa as described in the previous paragraph Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• When? Many Chinese H. erectus fossils were given a unique subspecies name based on minute anatomical differences, at a time when different modern human races were classified into different subspecies for similar reasons. As the definition of "subspecies" tightened in the late 20th century,... The time frame is confusing here. The phrase "at a time when ... " suggests the reader should know what time/decade/years the first part of the sentence is talking about ("Many ... were given a unique .. name"). Can a few words be added to the first sentence reminding the reader what time this is? E.g. "During the 1940s" or something like that?

It's more of a quick recap of the historical developments from the previous sections Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Phylogeny tree diagram: Is there a way to add "years ago" value to the bottom fork at the split of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens ?

Currently the only dates are how old each individual specime. Estimating the divergence time between two different species gets really dicey. The existing source gives about a million years ago Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarify: Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as classic H. erectus. Interesting fact! Will certainly raise questions for many readers: (1) Is that term still in use in new publications? or is it only found in older literature? (2) what is the significance of the term "classic"? In other words: how does "classic H. erectus" differ from plain H. erectus? I realize that the source may contain the answers to these questions, but readers will be happier if the article supplied the answers.

As in Peking Man is the classic example of what H. erectus is supposed to look like. Like, that is the "plain" erectus. The existing source for that claim comes from 2018 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote marks: Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as classic H. erectus. Some readers may not know where the term begins & ends. I had to stare at it a few seconds before I concluded that the term was "classic H. erectus". Suggest adding quote marks around those 3 words so readers don't have to guess at the start/end. However .... the need for quotes may go away if explanatory text is added to the sentence (as suggested in bullet above) such as Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as classic H. erectus in older literature, to distinguish them from H. erectus fossils that are ... [in this example, I'm inventing some text in the latter half of the sentence for illustration.

• Confusing wording: In 1946, Weidenreich forwarded an unpopular hypothesis that Peking Man... At first reading, I thought "forwarded" meant "relayed a message to another person". I had to stop and start the sentence again, and finally figured out that the intention is "published" or "promoted" or "posited" or "hypothesized" or "conjectured", etc. Suggest using a word that is clearer than "forwarded".

changed to posited Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote marks: (Homo erectus pekinensis, originally "Sinanthropus pekinensis") I'm curious why the latter has quote marks, but the former does not. Is that covered by a Manual of Style guideline?

standard taxonomic convention, quotes around synonyms or otherwise invalid names Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all I have at this point. Noleander (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Noleander, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dunkleosteus77: It is a fine article, and I'm close to supporting. My only hesitation is that there were several suggestions above where I expressed confusion, and you replied to me here in the FAC page, explaining the article to me. But my intention was not to get an answer for myself, but rather to hint to you that future readers may experience similar confusion. So I was expecting some improvements in the article, to assist readers. Examples:

  1. ... as had been broadly recommended by various priors. ...

"many prior authors"? Is the issue the word "prior"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue was the word "priors" which is jargon/cant/slang. Looks like you fixed it. Noleander (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Who? To counter the declining interest in Eastern palaeoanthropology ...

"in academia" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. When? Many Chinese H. erectus fossils were given a unique ...

I can just remove it if you feel it's confusing. It's more to be a quick recap of the Classification section, so it's redundant. If you feel it's useful, I can definitely compile a long list of names and years, but that sounds beyond the scope of this article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Clarify: Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries ...

There were originally quote marks around it but one of the other reviewers said they were scare quotes and wanted them removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, if you think those passages are the best they can be, and that I'm unusually dense, let me know ... it won't be the first time :-) Noleander (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Oops, I addressed the above to the nominator. Sorry for any confusion. I do not oppose the FA nomination; but I do think there are some more improvements that could be made. Noleander (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: @Dunkleosteus77: - Support ... Excellent article! Noleander (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a longish article, so I'll come back and work on chucks on this a bit at a time over the next few days. I'm just going to be looking at prose quality. This will certainly need to be reviewed for the quality of the research by a WP:SME which I am very much not.

Lead

• Per WP:TECHNICAL, terms like "Middle Pleistocene" should be explained, i.e. "774,100 – 129,000 years ago" (everywhere, not just in the lead).
• It might just be my style, but I find long lists like alongside deer, rhinos, elephants, bison, buffalo, bears, wolves, big cats, and other animals to be distracting, especially when they're open ended (i.e. "... and other animals"). It's particularly odd that after enumerating this particular set of species, you then talk about giant hyenas which aren't on the list.

I thought it might be redundant Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you can get away with not defining the other types of tools, but "burins" deserves an explanation.

A burin is a sharp-pointed tool which today is used for engraving Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but my point was not "explain it to me", but rather "explain it to the reader". RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "chisel" a more well-known word? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

• economic geologist Johan Gunnar Andersson If you make it "Johan Gunnar Andersson, an economic geologist" you'll avoid the dreaded WP:SEAOFBLUE.
• Why is "dragon bones" in quotes? Also, give us a hint in-line as to what a dragon bone is.

it's in quotes because the source also put it in quotes, and "dragon bones" can be some animal bone or fossil or petrified wood or a fun looking rock, it's not the most specific term Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1918, while in Beijing ... by the American chemistry teacher John McGregor Gibb. overly long sentence.
• When Andersson visited a month later ... drove a man insane and another

split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• then-crown prince of Sweden Drop "then-". This was 100 years ago, nobody expects he's still the prince.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• At a meeting planned for the prince ... to jointly take over study of Zhoukoudian Yikes. There's at least three sentences hiding in there.

it's mainly just titles Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bohlin extracted another fossil human tooth in the context of aan archeological dig, is there any difference between a "human tooth" and a "fossil human tooth"?

if it was from the Neolithic or younger, then it wouldn't have been fossilized Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "biological anthropologist" to Biological anthropology (but watch the SEAOFBLUE).

linked Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you need "the" before job descriptions ("the biological anthropologist", "the paleoanthropologist")

I submitted this to the Guild of Copyeditors and they added the to all of them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think they did you a dis-service, but I'll defer to that. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a British convention Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• his decision to so quickly name a new genus the referrent of "his" has gotten blurry here.

fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the biological anthropologist ... was actually a human or some carnivore Another mega-sentence. I'm going to stop calling out each of these, but please give this a careful read through the entire article looking for similar constructs.

split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• questioned whether Peking Man was actually a human or some carnivore are "human" and "carnivore" mutually exclusive?

yes Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• artefacts I'm guessing you want {{Use British English}} at the top.

yes Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• encouraged to research these materials I don't think "research" can be used as a verb. Maybe that's Brit usage?

research can be a verb Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Geological Survey of China

it already is Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On 2 December 1929, the Chinese anthropologist Pei Wenzhong discovered a surprisingly complete skullcap,[14][c] and Zhoukoudian proved to be a valuable archaeological site ... This is a strange construction, switching from something that happend on a specific day to a statement about it's value over a broader time span.

split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• five or six jiao per day, in contrast to local coal miners who received a pittance of 40 to 50 yuan annually How many jiao in a yuan?

it's in the note Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. But that actually makes this weirder. "in contrast to ... who received a pittance" makes it sound like these guys are being well paid. Oh, wait, those are annual salaries for the coal miners. Could this be rephrased? The double change of variable (unit of currency and unit of time) obfuscates the real meaning. RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the coal workers were (I presume) working year round, whereas the dig team were working during dig seasons (over a few months depending on weather), so extrapolating a yearly salary for the dig workers is misleading Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• collaboration between these two civilisations it's not clear what two civilisations you're talking about.

Western and Chinese Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of specimens No issues.

Mao and post_mao eras

• pop science magazines "popular science" would sound more formal. You could also link to Popular science

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Age and statigraphy

• currently sits 128 m (420 ft) above sea level I assume it was not so during the pleistocene? Was it higher, lower, by how much?

Well sea level rose and fell a lot of times throughout the last million years, either higher or lower than modern day depending on when specifically you're talking about Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• further divided into 17 layers How are these numbered? Is layer 1 on the top or the bottom? What determines where one layer ends and the next begins?

Added that Layer 1 is the highest and youngest but I think explaining how geologically each layer differs in this section is a bit much for the scope of this article. A relevant ways they're differentiated are in the Palaeoenvironment section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Peking Man specimens, Locality 1" table, include a key explaining what all the crypic elements are?

There's a small note right next to Elements Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. OK, so that says "I₁ indicates the lower left first incisor". I'm guessing that things like ¹M mean "upper left first molar", and so on for (again, I'm guessing) P=Premolar, C=Canine? These probably make sense to paleontologists and/or dentists, but most people will still need a clearer explanation. RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

expanded the note. Does it need more detail? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background No issues

Out of Asia theory

• with a brain volume much larger than living apes make this "... than that of living apes"

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Peking Man's importance in human evolution ... and Homo (Kanam Mandible)[j] in Africa simplify

split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• believed that "Pithecanthropus" and African Homo regressed "... had regressed"

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinanthropus No issues

Out of Africa theory

• asserted several Chinese apes millions of years old asserted that ...?

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny

• The philogenetic tree needs a key explaining what all the various symbols mean. For example, what is "(2.85)" after Homo? What do the dagger symbols mean?

now that I think about it, the daggers only add unnecessary confusion, deleted. Expanded Mya to million years ago Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy No issues

Skull No issues

Cranial vault No issues

Brain No issues

Mouth

• the premolars are ellipse-shaped why not the simpler "eliptical"?

ellipsoid Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Postcranium

• Explain "subtrochanteric crest"

I wasn't sure how to gloss this because it's literally a crest right below the trochanter Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Body size No issues

• The torso is poorly known Maybe "The structure of the torso is poorly understood", or something along those lines?

"The torso did not preserve as well"? The words "poorly understood" makes me think "confusing" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Torso artifacts were not well preserved"? RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feels incorrect using the word artifact when I'm not talking about stone tools Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bone thickness No issues

Paleoenvironment

• The mammal assemblage indicates ... This feels like it starts in the middle. This section probably should begin with something like, "Along with the humanoid artifacts, the remains of other mammals were found", followed by your description of the layers, then pick up with "this collection includes macaques, the Zhoukoudian wolf ..." to avoid repeating "mammal assemblage" so many times.

Is the problem that the beginning doesn't directly reference Peking Man? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Perhaps "Along with the hominoid (or whatever the right term is) artifacts, the remains of other mammals were found. The mammal assemblage includes ..." RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"mammal assemblage of the Zhoukoudian site", since not every single layer contains human remains as detailed in the Age and stratigraphy section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it necessary (i.e. standard practice in this field) to capitalize "Layer"?

It's a proper noun so it does get capitalized Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of the cave

• the skulls belonged to a primitive species and the limbs to a more evolved one, the latter manufacturing stone tools and cannibalising the former Is cannibalize the correct word here? Cannibalism says consuming another individual of the same species so does it apply between species?

Well it can also mean man-eater so like a tiger that eats a person can be called a "cannibal" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• determined that there is no evidence of any fire or ash Either "determined that there was no fire or ash" or "found no evidence of fire or ash" works, but the hybrid "determined that there is no evidence" is strange.

fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the American anthropologist Noel T. Boaz and colleagues "and his colleagues"

That's actually a duplink so changed to "Boaz and colleagues", which is a pretty standard convention in citing a paper (like [primary author] and colleagues) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• They noted taphonomic debates are nonetheless still ongoing "were still ongoing As of 2016"

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should us the {{as of}} template (in a few places). It displays the same but has the side effect of adding the article to some maintenance category that various gnomes monitor. RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already says the study was done in 2016, so it's implied it's up until that year Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the fire debate is still heated "fire debate ... heated" Really?

We're allowed a little fun, like list of cetaceans with [cetacean needed] Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No! No fun allowed. If you want to indulge in that sort of self-gratification, WP:DYK always needs more help. RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society

• communist ideology among the general populace was imperative "general populace of China"

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• became the mainstay the mainstay of what?

"became popular in academic discussions" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stone tools

• the IVPP prioritised you have to search back a long way to find where IVPP is defined. Perhaps re-introduce it here?

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ; archaeological research stalled I think this would work better with "and" instead of the semicolon.

split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This strongly contrasts ... where tools and manufacturing techniques have been categorised there's a jarring shift of tense here. The previous sentence talks about something that happened 50-75 years ago, then jumps to the present.

If I say "contrasted" it'd sound like it's different now Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Consequently ... Nonetheless An odd construction. Could this be rephrased?

That got reworded but I forgot to take out "nonetheless", fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• or East Asia had a lower population density using a conjunction like "or" seems odd with a bullet list. Same with "and" a couple of paragraphs later.

removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A great chunk of these pieces "A great chunk" seems rather informal. I was going to suggest "A vast majority of" but I see that would repeat the usage in the following quote. I don't have a better suggestion offhand, but I don't like "a great chunk".

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire

• 700 °C (1,292 °F) ... 600 °C (1,112 °F) Don't let {{convert}} invent significant digits. There's a parameter to control this.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary OK, that's it for a read-through from me. Overall, very nice work; most of these issues are minor problems. I'll come back and take another look once you've had a chance to work though this all. RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few additional comments scattered in-line. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: What am I missing? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comments can be most easily seen in this composite diff. Of those, I think the only remaining item is to use {{as of}}. I'll just mark this as support now and you can clean that up on your own. Nice article, and I'll respectfully disagree with Graham Beards about the length; I found the historical background material interesting. RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I apologize for the odd formatting of my review. There was a big sale on L5 headers at the store, so I had a bunch to use up. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved. I already have things I want to articulate, so I won't flake on this one, promise. Remsense ‥ 论 01:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense, nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! I still do have things to say, so I'll get right to saying them. Remsense ‥ 论 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

§ "Out of Africa" theory

Mao era should likely be in sentence case.

I don't know what that means Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1960s etc. should be written out, per MOS:DECADE.

MOS says "always use four digits and an s, as in the 1980s" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, sorry! I've gone and made those tweaks myself. Remsense ‥ 论 21:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Xiaoping is not mentioned prior to or following the unlinked drop of his surname. His full name should probably be given and linked.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for what potentially function as scare quotes around "opening". Maybe just write and link reform and opening up in full?

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward spots throughout, maybe try Western works that contradicted tenets of Maoist ideology were disseminated throughout China, causing a radical shift in what anthropological positions were being discussed.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

§ Cranial vault

The initial image's caption is structured very awkwardly. Perhaps it can be rewritten with fewer hiccups, e.g. From left to right: illustrations of Skull XII by Franz Weidenreich showing the front, back, right, left, top, and bottom.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

§ Body size

Would The torso is poorly attested be correct?

I feel like that's more confusing. Maybe just poorly preserved? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the limbs and clavicle are proportioned like those of modern humans definitely seems better.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence leading the list does not grammatically connect, maybe rewrite as Working under this assumption, living body dimensions have been reconstructed:

That makes it sound like an exhaustive list Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better. Remsense ‥ 论 21:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More later? Remsense ‥ 论 00:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: did I miss anything? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Remsense:, is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is too long: Do we need all the historical detail pertaining to the discovery and confirmation of the species? I think most of it would be better placed in a linked article. Sorry, but I have to oppose for now. Graham Beards (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on the longer side, but there are other paleontology FAs at around the same or greater wordcount, like Dilophosaurus, Elasmosaurus, or Lambeosaurus Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: I read through the article twice, and I think the article is a perfectly good size ... certainly consistent with featured article status. I really enjoyed reading the details of the discovery and analysis. Rather than focusing on the size of the article, a better question is: is the article overly detailed? If you really think the article is overly detailed, you should identify several specific sentences that you think are should be removed from the article. And even if such sentences are identified and considered overly detailed, a simple solution is to move those sentences into {{efn}} footnotes .... that way the information is still readily available within the article. But until you identify specific sentences there's no way to decide whether they should be left alone, or moved into footnotes, or moved into other articles. Noleander (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. FAC reviewers are not obliged (and never have been) to provide such detailed commentary: that is the role of peer review. With regard to your comment "a better question is: is the article overly detailed", I specifically asked if we needed all the "the historical detail pertaining to the discovery and confirmation of the species", but the nominator has not responded. My oppose is not set in stone and I am happy to revisit the article, but I object strongly to your telling me what I should do. Graham Beards (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for causing offense. I believe what is going on here is that your original comment was a bit ambiguous: your intention was to say that the article was overly detailed in areas, but the nominator interpreted it solely as a criticism of the size (which was a reasonable interpretation, since your first sentence was "I think the article is too long."). Your question "Do we need all the historical detail pertaining to ....?" was misinterpreted by the nominator as an example cut that could be made to get the size down to your goal size. The nominator then replied by stating that the size was okay, hence no cuts were necessary. You never replied to that. Ten days later, I drove by and saw there was a miscommunication, and I prompted you to give the nominator a few examples of specific sentences that they should remove, so they could get a feel for what sorts of material you felt were too detailed. Sorry if my prior post was not clear. Noleander (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Now perhaps could User:Dunkleosteus77 speak for themselves? Graham Beards (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're referring to Discovery and Classification, I would say they're appropriately detailed. Like it's detailing how and why Peking Man became so popular. It's about how incredibly influential Peking Man was to the understanding of human evolution of the time, how it shaped racial discourse in anthropology, and really how it shaped the course of paleoanthropology over the 20th century. Like, this is the fossil that really kicks off paleoanthropology in East Asia or even just outside of Europe in mainstream academia. In regard to specifically the "confirmation of the species", the Peking Man (as one of the most famous and well-studied human fossils) was also at the center of nomenclatural reforms in the field in the mid-20th century. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'll read the article again and get back to you. Graham Beards (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. My position is supported by WP:Summary style, in particular where it says "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs." The fact that a topic, or sub-topic is, "interesting" is a red herring: I found the whole article interesting. I think there are two (perhaps three) articles here: much of the politics could be spun off to a daughter article on Maoism and Peking Man. I think the Background section under Classification can be shortened and the second paragraph under Paleoenvironment deleted. The "Sinanthropus" section is overdetailed as is the Loss of specimens section. Also, and unrelated to the length issue, what purpose does the Gallery serve? There is no explanation of the annotations. This is more like a treatise than an encyclopedia article. Graham Beards (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peking Man is a historical figure, so per WP:WEIGHT, yes the biggest sections deal with history. Most texts academic or otherwise about Peking Man were written in the context of the rise of communism in China and historical race concepts. Like, that was the time when basically any paleoanthropological paper or pop-science had to mention the name Peking Man or Sinanthropus or Zhoukoudian — when Peking Man was really the star of the show. And yes the fossil was absolutely central to the historical understanding of human evolution. That isn't the case anymore, Peking Man compared to that time is rarely discussed anymore in the total sum of paleoanthropological papers being published. I'd be fine cutting down the Background section since it's only there to get the reader up to speed on what Chinese anthropology and European paleoanthropology were like just prior to Peking Man (so it's not directly relevant), I just wanna make sure I'm not detracting from a reader's understanding of everything going on in the Classification section. The Gallery section is so the reader can see the actual fossils, which is severely overlooked in just science communication in general — everyone always wants to show some fun, speculative artwork/reconstruction. Like before I uploaded them to Commons, you had to go on a journey to track down actual images of the Peking Man fossils. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the gallery, now you have uploaded them, and thank you, they are easily found along with other useful images (that are not in the article). See [1]. I can't see the point of having them in the article without any commentary. They are just decoration. Graham Beards (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's important for people to see the actual fossils instead of just artistic renderings Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't the fossils, they are drawings of them. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few of them, the rest are scans or scans next to an illustration Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already did a comprehensive review [2], so I am close to supporting this. Some notes, though:

• I tend to agree with the reviewer above that the article is a bit long, and I see potential to trim it down. We already have the Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site article, which can probably accommodate some of the detail. Another example is the "Stone tools" section, which has a long intro that is not precisely about Peking Man. Of course, it is important for background, but I don't think we need this level of detail there, and the quote (which is also not about Peking Man directly) is unnecessary here. I would include a "main article" hint or similar to point to the Movius Line article instead.
• Related to that: The "Society" section could probably also be trimmed; while the information is interesting, it seems more pertinent for some broader article (maybe we need an article like "History of study of human evolution" to point readers to?). In any case, I think it could be much more concise while keeping the main points. It is not clear how the Stalin quote is immediately relevant to Peking Man. These are just examples, I think that similar cuts are possible in many places without affecting coverage.

I'll get to cutting sometime this week Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some cuts, but I think maybe the issue is that it's not clear enough in a few places that it's directly talking about Peking Man. Like when Movius said "Eastern Asia" he's talking specifically about the Zhoukoudian Peking Man locality. What other places does it seem like it's going off-topic? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We discussed this in the review already, but I am still unsure if Peking Man should really be introduced as a subspecies (the first sentence says "Peking Man is a subspecies of H. erectus") when most current sources don't see it as a subspecies. It might be better to say that Peking Man the name given to Homo erectus fossils from Zhoukoudian. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue here is that species and subspecies names are treated differently for humans than any other group, since anthropology has had a bad history with racism. This describes it as, "Informal N3 names such as 'Bertele Foot,' 'Denisovans,' or 'Neanderthals' (as opposed to Homo neanderthalensis) are a better system for referencing fossils or groups where the biological status of the group as an independently evolving lineage with a unique evolutionary trajectory is unclear". That is, while species names just in general aren't commonly used (I usually just see specimens called out individually than a species), it's not to say people consider it invalid, just they don't normally want to open a can of worms if their study isn't directly discussing nomenclature Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I see this from 2022 which uses H. erectus pekinensis in the title, so I wouldn't say subspecies names are completely invalid, just not widely used Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to removing the taxobox from here (as well as on Java Man, Yuanmou Man, etc. for the same reason that it's not exactly a widely used convention), I'm just wondering if this should be a discussion on WP:PAL, but then again I think I'm the only one there who's really invested in cavemen Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jens ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Still at 9211 words in the main body.

Page statistics is saying the prose is 8,740 words Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, the fire debate is still heated, with the Chinese palaeoanthropologist Xing Gao and colleagues declaring "clear-cut evidence for intentional fire use" in Layer 4 in 2017,[120] echoed by the Chinese palaeoanthropologist Chao Huang and colleagues in 2022.[121] – This seems out of place in the section "Occupation of the cave", when you already have a designated fire section; the details should appear in the latter.

I wasn't sure what to do here because, like, if they did use fire in the cave then that means they did occupy the cave Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should only have a very short and simple sentence there ("evidence for fire use suggests that the cave was occupied" or similar), keeping all the details for later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph in "Stone tools" could be much more precise while not loosing information. For example, "Archaeological research stalled." and "Consequently, China's Lower Palaeolithic record has generally been viewed as stagnant." are two sentences making exactly the same point. You don't need to repeat.

• The Movius quote is great for the Movius line article, but I don't think it is pertinent to this article, it is not about Peking Man precisely.

When he says "Lower Paleolithic ... Eastern Asia" he's talking exclusively about Zhoukoudian Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the idea proposed above for a spin-off article Maoism and Peking Man. This is a topic that is better discussed separately, I think. That would also make the "Stone tools" section shorter. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the length problem: I just had a look of your recent article Kabwe 1 ("Rhodesian Man"), where Homo rhodesiensis is a separate article, although that taxon is based on the same fossil. Woudn't that make sense here as well, having Peking Man just about the fossils from Zhoukoudian, and Homo erectus pekinensis as a separate article for the taxon (as the taxon might also include other fossils such as Nanjing Man)? With this solution, you could move many of the taxonomic details into the other article, which can make this article more focused and readable, and you avoid the issue with the unclear scope (the subspecies is not widely accepted). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that kinda reminds of when human and Homo sapiens were 2 different articles, the issue being the entire classification thing is centered around just Peking Man, so you'd just get 2 different articles that appear to have the same exact scope and arbitrarily apportioned content. I mean I could definitely try making a separate Homo erectus pekinensis article about I guess the Chinese Lower Paleolithic, but in order not to make it a 2nd Peking Man article, the classification discussion would stay here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I decided to Support this now. Yes, the article is still a bit long, but not outrageously long, and possibly still acceptable, and therefore not a reason for me to withhold my support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving a placeholder here so that I can get a few comments in. I'm in a busy point of my life right now, but potentially I can give some quick points to help move this along. New topic area for me so bear with! Fathoms Below (talk)

Alright, I have a few comments. Busier than I expected but I have some feedback that might help with the article. So let's see:

• In the first paragraph Peking Man is the word that begins two sentences in a row. Peking Man was instrumental in the foundation of Chinese anthropology, and fostered an important dialogue between Western and Eastern science. Peking Man became the centre of anthropological discussion, and was classified as a direct human ancestor, propping up the Out of Asia theory that humans evolved in Asia. perhaps replace the second usage of Peking Man with "The subspecies"?

Might be misleading, because it wasn't classified as a subspecies for most of when Out of Asia theory was popular Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The bone of the skull and the long bones are exorbitantly thickened. Maybe change the world exorbitantly to significantly?

"extremely" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "in addition to other natural processes" What exactly is this sentence referring to?

yeah I guess it's a little open-ended and in reference to kinda older ideas, removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Discovery subheading, I think you can remove the links to foxes, rodents, and limestone, since they seem like terms that most readers would know.

removed links for foxes and rodents Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As the war progressed, Weng and Weidenreich unfruitfully tried to convince the head of the college, Henry S. Houghton, to authorise a transfer of the Peking Man fossils to the United States for safekeeping Change unfruitfully to unsuccessfully.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More coming soon. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the meticulousness of the dig teams—going so far as to sieve out unidentifiable fragments as small as 1 cm (0.39 in) long—excavation of Zhoukoudian is generally considered to be more or less complete. Remove more or less

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Though these general timeframes are generally agreed upon, the exact date of each layer is subject to debate. Remove general

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On this matter, palaeogenetic analyses—the first in 2010—have reported that all humans whose ancestry lies beyond Sub-Saharan Africa contain genes from the archaic Neanderthals and Denisovans indicating early modern humans interbred with archaic humans. Remove on this matter

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Cranial Vault subsection, there is a second wikilink to brow ridge that should be removed.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, brow ridge is linked in the body but not in the lead.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fathoms Below (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments will be up by the weekend or earlier. So sorry for the long delay. Fathoms Below (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Postcranium subsection, it says The lunate bone (in the wrist) is modern humanlike, though proportionally small and broad. Do you need the parentheses there?

Yeah it's a gloss of lunate bone, just like "a left maxillary (upper jaw) fragment" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In Body Size, it says The torso is poorly known, but because the limbs and clavicle are proportioned like those of modern humans, it is typically assumed the rest of the body was as well. What is poorly known about the torso? Its composition? Maybe changing it to The dimensions of the torso are poorly understood…?

As in there's not that many pieces of the torso in the Peking Man material Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, northerly H. erectus populations tend to be shorter than tropical populations, with colder climate populations including Zhoukoudian and *Dmanisi averaging roughly 150 cm (4 ft 11 in), and hotter climate populations including African and Javan H. erectus 160 cm (5 ft 3 in). I don't think you need Overall, you could remove that word to tighten the prose.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Bone thickness section, you use thickened or similar terms a lot. Are there any synonyms that you can change thickened to to provide variety?

For anatomy, I think repetition of the same words makes it easier to understand, otherwise it looks like I'm bringing in new terms Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The mammal assemblage of the Zhoukoudian site indicates three major environmental units: Layers 11–10—a cold and dry, predominantly grassland environment; Layers 9–5—a warm, predominantly forested environment; and Layers 4–1—another cold and dry, predominantly grassland environment. You could remove all instances "predominately" to avoid more repetition.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It was quite early on assumed Peking Man was a prolific deer hunter, but since the establishment of non-human carnivores as major taphonomic agents, the dependence on hunting has become a controversial topic. You could remove quite

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, most of the Peking Man fossils were at least fed upon by likely hyenas. You could remove indeed

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• They simply fell into the cave from above. They noted taphonomic debates nonetheless were still ongoing as of 2016. Remove simply and nonetheless.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The prospect of "labour created humanity" Would concept work more as a word rather than prospect?

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonetheless, in 2004, Shen and colleagues reported evidence of a massive fire at Layer 10—ostensibly as old as 770,000 years ago, during a glacial period—and asserted Peking Man needed to control fire so far back in time in order to survive such cold conditions. You can remove nonetheless

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fathoms Below (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses, I haven't spot-checked the sources (Since you've written numerous FAs before I don't think one is required for promotion, but correct me if I'm wrong). I'll do another sweep of the prose since that's probably the only significant barrier to promotion. I have User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter enabled and the sources all look like they are peer-reviewed, scholarly sources. Two of them were highlighted as unreliable but it seems like that was only because they were accessed through ResearchGate. A question, could you maybe add wikilinks to Wikipedia articles we have on the sources? Such as linking the Journal of Human Evolution in source 33, 43, 75 etc? Just an option to help readers a tiny bit. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done a look-over and I feel comfortable supporting. Good work. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "discussions on primitive communism and polygenism". You need to explain polygenism here inline or in a note, especially as the polygenism article is about the white supremicist version, not the one advocated in China.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "which described Peking Man as a mere offshoot in human evolution". "mere offshoot" is pejorative. I think it is better to say that western science denies that the Chinese are descended Peking Man.

"as an offshoot", since if there was interbreeding then Peking Man would actually be an ancestor of some modern East Asian populations Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer "side branch" as clearer, but it is a matter of opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Peking Man interbreeding with human ancestors is still discussed, especially amongst Chinese researchers." This is a bit misleading. Chinese researchers no doubt discuss the issue specifically in relation to Peking Man, but no paleontologist would deny that modern humans and H. erectus may have interbred.

Generally Western H. erectus (like superarchaic introgression into "Neandersovans"), but introgression of Eastern H. erectus into modern humans (with "hybrid" specimens like Dali Man) has usually not been too popular outside of Eastern academia Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cite this in the text to the Anton/Middleton paper, but as it is 220 pages and you do not give a page number it is impossible to check. They say on p. 111 "The Denisova examples as well as later introgression between Neandertals and recent humans lay bare just how much contact, reticulation, and gene flow there has been recently and what we should probably expect to have been the case throughout Eurasia in earlier times." This appears to contradict your comment, and if I remember correctly I have heard references in lectures to evidence that the Denisovans interbred with a ghost population in Asia, presumably H. erectus. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Anton 2023, "The current convention is to think of Middle Pleistocene Asian H. erectus (i.e. Zhoukoudian and Ngandong/Sambungmacan) as potentially relict populations with little input to later Homo" but then it goes on to expand on your point that there's still debate Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in the Anton/Middleton paper on the debate is so extensive that they seem to me to be saying that the "current convention" is no longer generally accepted by western researchers. BTW It is helpful to give page numbers and they are available in the pdf version. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "especially amongst Chinese researchers" in the lead, and in the body I can certainly expand more on the muddle in the middle if you think it's appropriate Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Peking Man characterises the classic H. erectus anatomy." What does "characterises" mean here? I would prefer "has".

Peking Man was the first well-preserved H. erectus fossils, so they ended up kinda defining what a "normal" H. erectus really looks like Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think that "characterises" will convey your explanation to most readers. It needs clarification. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you prefer? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Brain volume ranged from 850 to 1,225 cc (52 to 75 cu in), for an average of just over 1,000 cc (61 cu in), within the range of variation for modern humans." You should specify the average for modern humans.

the average of which population? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• if you say that it is within the range of variation then you must have figures in mind you are comparing with. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normal human brain volume can be 850 cc. I don't like giving averages of living populations because it varies significantly place to place (typically populations in colder climates have higher brain volumes). For instance, the average of say an Aboriginal Australian population can be lower than the absolute lowest brain size for a European population Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is usual to compare the average for H. erectus with that for chimpanzees and modern humans. It is misleading just to say that it is within the range of variation of modern humans. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then which modern human population would you prefer I use? If I use a European male study it'll probably give an average of like 1,350 cc, and the reader comparing that to the Peking Man average would be misled into thinking 1,000 cc is small, and they'll also be misled into thinking brain size at this level is related to intelligence Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is further disputed if Peking Man inhabited the cave". What cave? You need to clarify as you have not mentioned it since the first paragraph.

mentioned earlier in the par Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You have not specified which cave in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

added "Zhoukoudian cave site" to the Occupation of the cave section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The last paragraph of the lead is unsatisfactory. The third paragraph states that Peking Man had the typical H. erectus anatomy. Discussion of environment and culture should similarly make clear how far it relates to the species and how far specifically to the sub-species.

I don't understand. The last par discusses the environment and cultural complexity of Peking Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The discovery sub-section could be cut down a bit. I do not see the relevance of the malevolent foxes or the crown prince of Sweden.

malevolent foxes to explain why it's called "Chicken Bone hill" despite being full of rodent fossils, and the meeting with the crown prince is the context for the first public usage of the phrase "Peking Man" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "discovered a surprisingly complete skullcap". Perhaps "almost" instead of "surprisingly".

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Excavation of Zhoukoudian began to stall after the Marco Polo Bridge incident on 7 July 1937 and the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War." I would delete reference to the incident as obscure and unnecessary.

it's part of the chronology, when Weidenreich starts scrambling to protect the fossils from the impending war, especially since Marco Polo Bridge is on the road from Beijing to Zhoukoudian. To make it more obviously relevant, I can add that excavation was suddenly halted 2 days later Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Excavation of the Zhoukoudian was so well documented that the loss of the original specimens did not greatly impact their study.[29] According to Tielhard: "The Sinanthrope has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn, photographed and cast in plaster down to the last fossa, crista and tubercle .... The loss is more a matter of sentiment than a true tragedy for science." These comments are obviously based on ignorance of modern methods. If the original specimens had survived, DNA and molecular analysis might have yielded extremely important results. Also, Teilhard is misspelled.

I mean if you're talking about proteome analysis, we still have some teeth from the pre-war digs Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Proteins are more often preserved than DNA, but still rarely. If the original specimens had survived, there would have been a vastly better chances of extracting DNA and proteins. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have a source that discusses all the taxonomic issues that could've been cleared up had dental proteome analysis on the original Peking Man collection been possible. What would you like it to be? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "excavation of Zhoukoudian is generally considered to be complete" As above, these comments are dated, and do not take account, for instance, of the possibility of extraction of DNA from soil. I realise that you may not have sources to qualify the comments, but I think they should be dated and attributed inline as the views at that date.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "within the frame of communism". This is too broad. There are many varieties of communism. As you say above, the Chinese variety is specifically Marxist.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Done to Age and stratigraphy. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been busy offline but I should get back to it in the next day or two. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dubois "unfruitfully attempted to convince the European scientific community that he had found an upright-walking ape-man; they dismissed his findings as some kind of malformed non-human ape.". This was only one of a variety of reactions. Curtis, Swisher and Lewin, Java Man, says "No other paleontological discovery has created such a sensation and led to such a variety of conflicting scientific opinions." (p. 75). Dubois had "a suspicious nature verging on the paranoid", and he still found it necessary to defend himself against his critics in 1898 even though their number was diminishing. (pp. 76-77).

Eventually yes it became sensational, but it didn't happen immediately. It's importance in anthropology (as relevant to Peking Man) is detailed later. Dubois kept defending his original description that he'd found an ape man despite everyone else arguing against him. As Arthur Keith said, "an idealist, his ideas being so firmly held that his mind tended to bend facts rather than alter his ideas to fit them" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have quoted a study of Dubois's Java Man by three experts, Garniss Curtis, Carl Swisher and Roger Lewin, contradicting your text. It is not a satisfactory reply just to restate your position. BTW, the proponent of Piltdown is hardly the best authority on Dubois's faults. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My problem here is that you still haven't spelled out what precisely is incorrect and what needs to be changed. The initial reaction in European academia was dismissal of Java Man as a human ancestor. Per Hsiao-pei Yen, 2014, "The reception of the Java Man was controversial, as many discredited the fossil, thinking it to be that of a deformed ape, and Dubois completely withdrew himself from the debate in 1900" and per Theunissen p. 80, "Even before Dubois published his official treatise in 1894 there were several reactions to his announcement of the discovery of a missing link. Scepticism prevailed." The existing statement in the article is correct. I can certainly go on a giant tangent about Dubois and Java Man in the decades to come until we reach Weidenreich and Peking Man, but personally I think that's best left at Eugene Dubois or Java Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claim that your source directly contradicts the existing text is untrue because it does talk about the "tide of criticism" after Dubois' initial publication of the Trinil finds which "surged to floodlike proportions when Dubois returned to Europe and embarked on a proselytizing odyssey". Also, that claim in the book of the number of critics diminishing is in the context of Schwalbe's idea that Neanderthals were a direct human ancestor, which loses out to Boule. The claim of it being so sensational came from von Koenigswald looking back 60 years later on everything that became of the Java Man find. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Peking Man, with a brain volume"; next sentence starts "Peking Man", leaving out "The". I think leaving out "The" is correct as not referring to an individual.
• "To explain the paucity of stone tools in Asia compared to Europe (an apparent contradiction if humans had occupied Asia for longer), he also stated that Pleistocene Central Asia was too cold to permit back-migration by early modern humans or Neanderthals until the Neolithic." I am not clear what you are saying here. Did Grabau say that central Asia was unoccupied because it was too cold? I thought the theory was of continuous occupation, as stated in the next paragraph. This needs clarifying.

2 sentences before this it brings up that Grabau believed that the genus Homo (the living races/extinct allies) evolved in Africa, so it was unoccupied by more proficient toolmakers until the arrival of the western "Neolithic Man" (kind of an echo of Sino-Babylonianism and similar ideas, which became less and less popular especially through the 30s and 40s) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand you. Where was unoccupied by more proficient toolmakers. You say that Grabau believed that proto-man went to NW China in the Piocene and invented fire and stone tools there, so what is meant by saying that "Pleistocene Central Asia was too cold to permit back-migration by early modern humans or Neanderthals (primitive Homo) until the Neolithic"? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homo and modern man did not evolve in China, his primitive progenitors with less evolved technology did. China was occupied for most of its history by these evolutionarily stagnant races, while the west invented the Neolithic and agriculture. Neolithic Man arrives in the China (mainly in reference to Andersson's finds), bringing that region of the world up to speed. Grabau was essentially describing what would later be called the Movius Line, and what he's saying is similar to Movius' later claim, "Southern and Eastern Asia as a whole was a region of cultural retardation". Of course, into the later 30s and 40s, it was realized that the Far East had invented agriculture independently (Andersson speculated that maybe the West adopted agriculture from the East) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "polycentric hypothesis". This is a rare term which I have not come across. I think it is better to use the usual term, Multiregional origin theory, as the Wikipedia article does.

I'd argue polycentricism is the more accurate term here, multiregionalism is more like the less racially-charged revision almost. It's like a historical term Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiregional is the term used by almost all experts. It is not for a Wikipedia editor to decide that another very rare term is better. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the current modern term. All of the sources use polycentricism because they're describing history, and changing it to "multiregionalism" would be completely incorrect Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"polycentric hypothesis" has two hits in Wikipedia. One is your addition to Peking Man and the other is as an alternative in the Multiregional origin of modern humans, which was added by an editor who was later barred as a sock puppet. It is not a redirect and it is not listed in the polycentric disambiguation. A search in Google Scholar since 2021 yields two hits in the human evolution sense, both by Russian scholars. The term is thoroughly obscure and I have never come across it in extensive reading on the subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep trying to tell you, polycentrism is a historical term, so of course you don't see it used anymore. You can read up on the difference at https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02436629 and conflation of Weidenreich's polycentrism with Coon's polygenism, and how this relates to modern multiregional Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise that by historical you mean dated and no longer used. What matters is what the article says. You give a definition there of polycentrism which applies to the multregionalism hypothesis, and link to an article which states in the first line that they are synonyms. if you are using the word because it was Weidenrich's term for what was later to be called multiregionalism, you need to explain that. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While modern multiregional theory evolved out of polycentrism, multiregional and polycentrism are distinct ideas. I can remove the wikilink if it's confusing Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Polygenism. You contrast this with polycentric, but it appears to be the same. Do you mean Monogenism?

So polycentricism isn't precisely polygenism, there's a small note detailing that, but at the same time the two were often conflated because people were comparing Weidenreich to Coon Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You contradict yourself on the definition of polygenism. In the lead you say "polygenism (that Peking Man was the direct ancestor of Chinese people)", which is multiregional. Then you say refer to the "polycentric hypothesis, where local populations of archaic humans evolved into the local modern humans, as opposed to every modern population sharing an anatomically modern ancestor (polygenism)". Wikipedia and dictionaries contradict you on this definition of polygenism, stating that it means evolution of different races from different ancentral types. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peking Man being a direct ancestor is not multiregionalism. Yes, the polycentric hypothesis suggested things like Chinese people evolved from "Sinanthropus", Aboriginal Australians evolved from "Pithecanthropus", etc., in other words the evolution of different races from different ancestral types depending on when in history you're talking about it and who exactly you're asking, because as I said, Weidenreich's polycentricm was often conflated with the classically polygenic ideas of Coon Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Java Man (which at the time was characterised as a giant gibbon by Dubois)". This is confusing without explaining that by the 1930s Dubois had abandoned the view that Java Man was a human ancestor. I would delete as too tangential.

Dubois always believed Java Man was a human ancestor, just not a humanlike one. He believed it was the immediate precursor to a humanlike form, and this is where he took issue with Weidenreich and mainstream academia trying to reconstruct his Trinil fossils with a human bodyplan Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I see on further checking that I was wrong about Dubois abandoning the view that Java Man was a human ancestor. His statement that it was a giant gibbon just meant that he thought that human ancestors were gibbonlike and that Java Man was closer in body form to a gibbon than to a modern man. "characterised as a giant gibbon by Dubois" is misleading without explanation as it implies that Dubois abandoned the view of Java Man as a human ancestor. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" also argued that Java Man had a humanlike body plan" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "argued that, per nomenclature codes". "per" is too colloquial. I would prefer "in accordance with".

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Weidenreich discussed applying the burgeoning field of genetics to physical anthropology with namely Theodosius Dobzhansky and Sherwood Washburn, as modern evolutionary synthesis was being formulated." This is unclear. If you mean that these three scientists developed the modern evolutionary synthesis, this should be spelled out.

There were a lot of workers in the formulation of what would become known as modern evolutionary synthesis, Dobzhanksy himself is a pretty big name in this concept, and Washburn and Weidenreich especially in the context of the Peking Man material and revising physical anthropology Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was pointing out that your wording is unclear, not saying that it is wrong. Indeed, "applying the burgeoning field of genetics to physical anthropology with namely Theodosius Dobzhansky and Sherwood Washburn" is ungrammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems grammatical to me, what should it be? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mayr defined these species as a sequential lineage, with each species evolving into the next (chronospecies).[53] Though later Mayr changed his opinion on the australopithecines (recognising Australopithecus), his more conservative view of archaic human diversity became widely adopted in the subsequent decades.[54] Thus, Peking Man was considered a human ancestor in both Western and Eastern thought.[55] Nonetheless, Chinese and Soviet scientists wholly denounced polygenism, viewing it as scientific racism propagated by Western capitalist scholars under racial capitalism. They instead argued that all modern human races are closely related to each other." I do not follow you here. Sequential evolution implies a single line and a rejection of multiregional or polycentric evolution. It follows that H. erectus is an ancestor, but not necessarily the Peking sub-species, whereas you say that it does follow. You then say that Chinese and Soviet scientists denounced polygenism, but they were multiregionalists (polygenists). Do you mean monogenism? Then you say that they argued that all modern races are closely related, which I would take to be a monogenist view. I may have something wrong or misunderstand what you are saying, and if so please clarify.

Removed, I guess this part isn't relevant enough to explain fully here. It goes back to if polycentricism is or is not polygenism Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "In China, Wu Rukang argued that Australopithecus was the "missing link" between apes and humans, but was met with much derision from Chinese peers." For clarity, I would spell out that Australopithecus is only found in Africa.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "To counter the declining interest of Eastern palaeoanthropology in academia, many Chinese scientists commonly advanced Sinocentric and often polygenic arguments." I am not sure what "interest of Eastern palaeoanthropology in academia" means. Also, you seem to here use polygenic as meaning multiregional, unlike above where - if I understand you correctly - you use it to mean the opposite.

declining interest as in the shift from Sinocentricism to Afrocentricism, and 2 million year old racial continuity is polygenism Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is still unclear in the article and you have not clarified there. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"with the rise of Afrocentrism" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "namely by the Chinese palaeoanthropologist Wu Xinzhi," I would leave out "namely" as pointless verbiage.

changed to "such as"

• "Peking Man's ancestral position is still widely maintained among especially Chinese scientists using the assimilation model, wherein archaic humans such as Peking Man interbred with and were effectively absorbed into modern human populations in their respective locations." I am not clear whether this means that Chinese scientists maintain some version of multiregionism, or they just see Peking Man as having a similar input in Asia to the Neanderthals in Europe.

in modern multiregionalism, that's the same thing Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not the same thing at all. The view that different races evolved from different species of ancient human is quite different from the modern consensus that modern humans have a single origin with minor introgressions from ancient human species.

I think the problem is when you say "multiregionalism" you're trying to synonymize it with "polycentricism". I have no idea what your original comment is trying to say Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Still, East Asian H. erectus from China and Indonesia are now usually characterised as relict populations which had little interaction with Western H. erectus or later Homo species." As you accept above, Anton and Middleton go on to extensively qualify this comment.

I mean Anton doesn't specifically argue against that claim either, the rest of that paragraph is about potential evidence of morphological continuity among only East Asian H. erectus and no one else, like, "There is certainly morphological continuity but no identity from earlier...mid-Pleistocene (Zhoukdoudian) to later mid-Pleistocene (Nanjing) Chinese hominins...And there are shared structures...between Zhoukoudian and Ngandong...similarities with Indonesian H. erectus...and mandibulo-dental connections between upper Sangiran and Zhoukoudian that suggest some level of gene flow and population reticulation between these broad regions." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I regret that I have to oppose this nomination, for the reasons given above. In particular, I have pointed out that in several places that the text is unclear and the nominator has never responded by clarifying the text. I am also concerned about the apparent confusion over the meaning of polygenism and the failure to engage with my quotation of a reliable source contradicting the account of the response to Dubois's discoveries. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been open for more than six weeks and seems to have stalled over the past three or more, only picking up a yet-to-be-resolved oppose from Graham Beards. Unless significant progress is made towards a consensus to promote in the next few days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of sources on this topic, I guess there is some kind of method when selecting those to use in the article? Source formatting seems consistent and the sources reliable, but I must ask about completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article extensively uses literature reviews as well as the studies (and related discourse) which are frequently brought up in these reviews Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Dudley Miles is also doing some checking - will defer to them on spotchecking and stuff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]