# Talk:Middle Stone Age

I will be adding more information to the 4 subheadings that are currently empty. There will be data under those fields by the end of the day today AnatuZeder (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Middle Stone Age is equivalent to neither the Middle Paleolithic nor the Mesolithic. The Middle Stone Age is used to refer to the period in Africa between roughly 280,000 years ago to approximately 40,000 years ago (dates vary between sources). The Middle Paleolithic is not a concept applied to African archaeology and none of these pages should be merged since they all refer to distinct phenomena in different times or different places.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnatuZeder (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC) 
Middle Stone Age is not equivalent to Mesolithic ! The first is African and is dated between 200.000 and 30.000 years, the lattest is European and begins around 8.000 years BC ! --I20 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
yes. It is equivalent to Middle Paleolithic. The claim that "Middle Paleolithic" is a term restricted to European prehistory is not substantiated. This should just be the "Africa" section of the Middle Paleolithic article. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it is not exactly the same, the chronological limits are not the same. The two articles should not be merged. I20 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
hi im am so bored but this is right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.28.54 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC) 

Wilkins, ʺEarlier and Middle Stone Age Prepared Core Reduction Strategies at Kudu Koppie, 
Northern South Africaʺ 
The lowermost level of the site of Kudu Koppie in the Limpopo River Valley of South Africa yields a terminal Earlier 
Stone Age industry containing core‐axes and described as a local variant of the Sangoan industry
76.16.183.158 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC). 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Middle Stone Age/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
Earwig's tool did not bring up any major findings, apart from a site that links to Wikipedia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"Backed pieces from the Twin Rivers and Kalambo Falls sites in Zambia dated at sometime between 300 and 140,000 years indicate a suite of new behaviours [2][9] Barham [10] believes that syntactic language was one behavioural aspect that allowed these MSA people to settle in the tropical forests of the Congo." - There is some punctuation missing here. I would have just fixed it myself, as that is a minor, inconsequential change, but I'm not entirely sure how these sentences meant to be constructed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
From "Lithic technology:" "It may have been used from the transition from the Early Stone Age to the Middle Stone Age onwards." - What is "it?" If this is referring to the use of blades, just write "these blades may have been used from the transition from the Early Stone Age to the Middle Stone Age onwards."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"Skoyles and Sagan for example argues..." - "Skoyles and Sagan argue..."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
The article could benefit from some more wikilinks. For instance, in "Regional Development", Blombos Cave, Howiesons Poort, Still Bay, and Pinnacle Point Cave are all mentioned, but not wikilinked.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Only the first word in section headings should be capitalized unless there is a proper noun. So, "Regional Development" should be "Regional development," "Lithic Technology" should be "Lithic technology," "Hominin Evolution and Migration" should be Hominin evolution and migration," etc.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"...approximately 300 kya, we begin to see the gradual displacement of the large cutting tools of the Achuelian..." - Use of "we" in this sentence and others in the article is not within Wikipedia standards. Having read many history and anthropology articles in college, I understand that this is common parlance in journal articles. However, Wikipedia has different writing standards. Wikipedia articles shouldn't address the reader directly.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In "Evidence for modern human behavior," several theories are mentioned - mosaic, discontinuity, cognitive advances - but aren't explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Per MOS:HEAD, section headings should not contain questions, so "Cultural complexes?" should be changed to something like "possible cultural complexes."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"While this may seem unremarkable..." - this is another example of writing that isn't within Wikipedia stylistic standards. This could be rephrased as "These variations are remarkable because... ."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
All sources use the same format as the following: McBrearty, Sally and Alison A. Brooks 2000 The revolution that wasn't: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 39:453–563. The only problem with this style is that there should be a period after the author names and publication year, and the article title should be in quotes. If the source is a book, the book title should be italicized.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary: 
Adequate citations to reliable sources. URLs to the sources are not provided (and even so the sources might require a subscription), so I'm accepting them AGF.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
C. No original research: 
Content is verifiable and attributed to sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Covers the major aspects.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
B. Focused: 
Stays focused on the Middle Stone Age.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Neutral, presents all major views.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Back through early 2011, there have been a few instances of vandalism or otherwise disruptive editing, but this was quickly resolved, and no edit wars occurred. Overall, a quite stable article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All images are released either to public domain or else for free re-use and modification under Creative Commons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Relevant images captions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Overall: Still needs some work on the prose.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Pass or Fail: 
Thank you, Ninafundisha, for taking on this article. You have addressed all of the problems that I found.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you, too, 3family6, for the review!! Ninafundisha (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Quoting MOS:LEAD

"The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.  The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.   It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

MOS:INTRO

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible."

Bold emphasis mine.  "Encyclopedic style" does not mean "dry & dusty." The lede is too short, and also reads like the answer sheet of a multiple choice test. Particularly the lede should be geared to the non-expert, since the lazy overuse of wikilinks are liable to land people from all walks of life here who only want a quick def.  Most people don't read much beyond the lede. Hint, the non-expert doesn't care about points, s/he cares about clothing, food, occupation, and family etc.. to get a feel for it. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C1D:4479:38BA:D508 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Thanks for your input, Doug Bashford! Please feel free to edit the intro yourself, particularly if you have ideas about how to improve it. Ninafundisha (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Why thank you! So many articles are jealously guarded by vigilant angels of harumphitude who actually believe "encyclopedic style" means; "stilted and boring." I just returned from Mesolithic's lede.  It seems so much nicer (as per above). Communication has about six main rules and one of them is to target your message to a particular audience. While the wiki target is Everyman, especially so the lede.
I've thought about this article. I guess I could polish the lede for friendliness, —or do a rewrite. I envision somebody editing the one paragraph down in size, then adding up to three more, for a total of four paragraphs. Possibly in one paragraph, we could try to tell a short (his)story of one imaginary family or tribe for a day to put the reader there...in six? sentences. We absolutely do not want to use a template that is compatible with say; a physical science. In my mind the lede should give Everyman (who knows NOTHING about this topic) a realistic gut feeling for the topic in an interesting way, make him consider reading further. (My first rule of writing is: Nobody is as interested in this as I am.) To polish for friendliness would mostly be to keep Everyman in fast-reading mode, as reading a newspaper. (I also get the vague feeling that debate points are being suggested, to an unknown debate.) Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C1D:4479:38BA:D508 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford
All interesting ideas, thanks. I think we need to be careful to keep the tone of the introductory paragraph encyclopedic - and thus I don't think we should invent imaginary peoples for the sake of storytelling. Middle Stone Age archaeology is very much a hard science, and so perhaps I'd advocate for a more simple clean-up of the lede to make it more reader-friendly while still maintaining an encyclopedic tone. Please keep in mind that the page did go through an extensive peer review during the Good Article process, and so I am reluctant to overhaul it completely. I think we should give Everyperson a bit more credit as well! But, if there are ways to make the intro more clear, and less jargony, then by all means I'd say go for it. Ninafundisha (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see if I can knock off some of the rough edges, and somebody can clean that up to fit. But the major flaw will remain; the lede is about the science of the Middle Stone Age, and what the MSA isn't, and some dates, rather than about (explaining) the Middle Stone Age. It's like an into the lede that never comes.
My above suggestion? I often use harsh language, even hyperbole as tools to quickly convey complex concepts. And precision here still eludes me. Rather than "invent imaginary peoples," I meant portray a representative family or tribe, —problem is, ain't no such thing. (Or is there?)  But that's just one possible communication tool to meet our goal. But I can think of no other method both fat and short, as a lede requires. Yet there must be dozens.
When I said we do not want to use a template that is compatible with say; a physical science, I meant they are usually not compatible with a biological or social science. (Some of the worst and deepest errors in Chicago School economics can nastily be summed up as; physics envy, the GOD of science.) While Middle Stone Age is very much a hard science, it would be very wrong to assume we simply need to remove the jargon etc from any science, and use the same style and values of a peer reviewed journal and transpose it here, —a very intentionally NOT "peer reviewed journal." I would call that a translation failure. The translation is deeper than words. For example, in a trade journal, it seems the number one value is to never, ever make an error, (GASP!) so load up on the "legalese" clauses and conditionals, and omit anything that is not 100% confirmed. Then compose a facts list, and don't dare infer anything from them nor add context. (...because the reader is trained to do that?) Done. Crappy writing style doesn't matter.  But here the number one value is to communicate complex concepts with a few sentences to Everyman. I'm thinking of the adage; don't let perfection paralyze the good. Or; a little imprecision can save pages of intolerably boring writing, a Fail. Again, I'm using harsh, imprecise terminology, I hope you are catching my intent. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford
I've decided not to make any changes. You may want to look at Britannica's style on similar topics for inspiration. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford