Talk:Human/Archive 16

message: I am thinking of submitting the article for featured article status. Thoughts? Sam Spade 17:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great idea, Sam. We need to first get it through Wikipedia:Peer Review. This will bring good comments from other editors that have not participated as yet. Nothing better than a few fresh eyes and good feedback to improve an article. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
*Wikipedia:Peer review/Human/archive1
===Summary of suggestions from Peer review===
# Merge "The word people" into the longer "Terminology" section
# Rewirite "Mind" and "Psyche"  so it is less reliant on psychoanalysis theory
# Religion and philosophy - use lead sections from religion and philosophy
#:new proposed section by user RDF added ≈ jossi ≈
# Check for image copyvios
# Shorten TOC 
#: Is this possible? ≈ jossi ≈ 03:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you have any images you can add to this section?  — RDF talk 04:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of creating an image with a dozen or so religious symbols. What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ 15:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be cool.  I recently added as many symbols as I could find to the List of symbols.  My one request would be to go beyond the "Big Four" or so religions for the symbols you use.  Thanks!  — RDF talk 20:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Let me know what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice layout.  You probaly can't win from the list of what's not there, but looking at the number of adherents from Religion#Present day religious adherence and trends, I would at least add the Khanda from the Sikh religion. If you used a 3X3 layout, it would be a little more compact too.  — RDF talk 00:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. I have added the Kahanda on a 3 x 3 layout ≈ jossi ≈ 02:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: - I like it! :-) Now for the nit-pick.  It's cropped so tight some of the symbols are bleeding into the border on my display.  Can you add a few more pixels around the outside?  — RDF talk 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added 50 px border ≈ jossi ≈ 05:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not to worry, Sam. I am already on the case. A chance for me to put my graphics skills to use :) ≈ jossi ≈ 02:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I have replaced the image with a close-up cropped version on the pair, from the NASA original.. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an incomplete description; you also threw away a great deal of resolution, which is undesirable and unnecessary. Simply by requesting an image at a fixed pixel width the original will be reduced and served smaller automatically. This provides two benefits: (1) images displayed on screen do not consume excess bandwidth, and (2) images printed — typically at six to twelve times screen resolution — have all the detail they need to look great. One of the arguments for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) is that it achieves both benefits in a tiny, readable, editable, accessibility-friendly form. We don't want to use the SVG substitute that was proposed here because it is a scholarly distortion; but that doesn't mean we need to accept resolution reduction of the original, which would also be a distortion (as well as graphically undesirable for printing). So crop, but don't reduce the original; the  argument already says "200px", which is all that's needed. --KSmrqT 02:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I have re-uploaded at full resolution 1400px x 1776px @ 300 DPI. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Eh, I thought the intended purpose of the image here is a dispute free image to show what a human is, not a historical rendition of the pioneer 11 plaque. Which was why I replaced the image here and not the one on pioneer 11. As it stands the extra detail is distracting from the purpose of the image in the article, and I think another image should be found. --Gmaxwell 11:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I will remove the extra details from the image. I think that it is a great image for that box. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an excellent image. After all, it was intended to depict all mankind to the cosmos. The proportions of the figures were carefully chosen as a statistical average, thus really do represent "typical" humans. Additionally, the Pioneer 10 and 11 missions on which these were used exemplify the higher goals and achievements of humanity, a nice way to start the article. --KSmrqT 15:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: # Merge "The word people" into the longer "Terminology" section
# Rewirite "Mind" and "Psyche"  so it is less reliant on psychoanalysis theory
# Religion and philosophy - use lead sections from religion and philosophy
#:new proposed section by user RDF added ≈ jossi ≈
# Check for image copyvios
# Shorten TOC 
#: Is this possible? ≈ jossi ≈ 03:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of suggestions from Peer review

message: The intro to this section (Culture) implies this subsection should be broader than "simply" religion and philosophy: "Culture is defined here as a set of distinctive material, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual features of a social group, including art, literature, lifestyles, value systems, traditions, rituals, and beliefs." Nowhere does that intro mention "religion and philosophy." I hope this subsection doesn't get reduced to only the lead sections from those two articles.  
I looked at some other lead sections, but didn't see anything I thought could be directly lifted for here.  The closest I found was in the Cosmology article, in which distinctions are made between physical, religious, methaphysical and esoteric cosmologies.  These four perspecitves seem to more closely reflect the full range of how humans address the core questions of religion and metaphysics, e.g., "Why are we here? How did we get here? and What happens to us when we check out?"  I believe the Disciplines section of that artice could be reworked a bit to expand the discussion about "Spirituality and beliefs" (a possible broader heading?) beyond an unnecessarily restrictive viewpoint.  — RDF talk 02:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any images you can add to this section?  — RDF talk 04:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of creating an image with a dozen or so religious symbols. What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ 15:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be cool.  I recently added as many symbols as I could find to the List of symbols.  My one request would be to go beyond the "Big Four" or so religions for the symbols you use.  Thanks!  — RDF talk 20:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Let me know what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice layout.  You probaly can't win from the list of what's not there, but looking at the number of adherents from Religion#Present day religious adherence and trends, I would at least add the Khanda from the Sikh religion. If you used a 3X3 layout, it would be a little more compact too.  — RDF talk 00:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. I have added the Kahanda on a 3 x 3 layout ≈ jossi ≈ 02:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: - I like it! :-) Now for the nit-pick.  It's cropped so tight some of the symbols are bleeding into the border on my display.  Can you add a few more pixels around the outside?  — RDF talk 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added 50 px border ≈ jossi ≈ 05:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and philosophy

message: *  - derived from a public domain NASA image.
*  Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License
*  this image is a work of a United States Department of Agriculture employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
*  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
*  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
*  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
*  copyvio replaced with   Human head with lines connecting the senses of taste, hearing, sight, and smell to areas of the brain. Gregor Reisch, 1512. Margarita philosophica nova cui insunt sequentia - Public domain
* Fair use - This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law.
*- copyvio
* - copyvio Replaced by  (my rendering of Rodin's statue, uploaded under the GDFL) best appreciated in in full-screen≈ jossi ≈ 03:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, Sam. I am already on the case. A chance for me to put my graphics skills to use :) ≈ jossi ≈ 02:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I have replaced the image with a close-up cropped version on the pair, from the NASA original.. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an incomplete description; you also threw away a great deal of resolution, which is undesirable and unnecessary. Simply by requesting an image at a fixed pixel width the original will be reduced and served smaller automatically. This provides two benefits: (1) images displayed on screen do not consume excess bandwidth, and (2) images printed — typically at six to twelve times screen resolution — have all the detail they need to look great. One of the arguments for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) is that it achieves both benefits in a tiny, readable, editable, accessibility-friendly form. We don't want to use the SVG substitute that was proposed here because it is a scholarly distortion; but that doesn't mean we need to accept resolution reduction of the original, which would also be a distortion (as well as graphically undesirable for printing). So crop, but don't reduce the original; the  argument already says "200px", which is all that's needed. --KSmrqT 02:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I have re-uploaded at full resolution 1400px x 1776px @ 300 DPI. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Eh, I thought the intended purpose of the image here is a dispute free image to show what a human is, not a historical rendition of the pioneer 11 plaque. Which was why I replaced the image here and not the one on pioneer 11. As it stands the extra detail is distracting from the purpose of the image in the article, and I think another image should be found. --Gmaxwell 11:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I will remove the extra details from the image. I think that it is a great image for that box. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an excellent image. After all, it was intended to depict all mankind to the cosmos. The proportions of the figures were carefully chosen as a statistical average, thus really do represent "typical" humans. Additionally, the Pioneer 10 and 11 missions on which these were used exemplify the higher goals and achievements of humanity, a nice way to start the article. --KSmrqT 15:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images copyvio checks

message: * Hominid photo added to Classificaton and evolution  section
* Photo of elderly lady added to Life cycle  section
* Diagram of the diuble-helix structure of DNA added to Genetics  section
* Drawing of Rodin's "The Kiss" status added to Sexuality" section
* Photo of geishas and a popular tattoo added to Body section
* NASA photo of city lights from space (see it in full-res, pretty amazing) added to Habitat section
* Human head with lines connecting to senses from Gregor Reisch's Margarita philosophica nova cui insunt sequentia for section on Consciousness'
* Artist's rendering of Rodin's "The thinker" (replacing copyvio image) for Self reflection and Humanism section
* Color corrected Sigmund Freud's portrait (wiki commons image) 
* Picture of written language of "Human" in English, Japanese, Traditional Chinese, Korean, Hebrew and Greek, for Language section
I am trying to find an image to replace the diagram of "Freud's concept of the mind", but I have not succeeded as yet. Maybe will be best to delete for now.
Still to do: find appropriate images for Religion (will not be easy...) and for the Artefacts, technology and science sections. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New photos/images added

message: Does any one has the ability/knowhow to rewrite "Mind" and "Psyche" so it is less reliant on psychoanalysis theory? That was requested on the Peer Review, and it is needed to complete the review before wec an submit to FAC. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mind" and "Psyche" rewrite 

message: Are we writing that section? Anyone brave enough to attempt it? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought we should have something on music. Sam Spade 21:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I did all that and more ;) Sam Spade 00:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Motivation section is a nice addition, but we still something on happiness. An article about Humans cannot be without it. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And love! I don't know if I'm impressed that you remembered it, or disgusted that we all forgot it for so long. What is life without love, after all? Sam Spade 13:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human need/pursuit/quest for happiness? 

message: !re we ready for FAC? User:Jossifresco just asked me that. I can see room for improvement, but that will always be the case. What does everyone else think? Sam Spade 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Wikipedia:What is a featured article, this article is simply not stable. Shame, really. Banno 21:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I agree about the instability. Do you think that could ever change? Sam Spade 21:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Are there still any sections that are disputed? If it is not "stable", let's make it so... If an article on human beings cannot achieve FA status in WP, we should all pack and leave... ≈ jossi ≈ 22:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we ready? 

message: Does anybody still feel these sections need expanded? Sam Spade 13:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have enough emotion, but we need more sexuality :) ≈ jossi ≈ 15:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality and Emotion