This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Do we really need a long list of articles, which are inaccessible for most Wiki-readers, while we already have 100+ sources? I think we should mention here a strict selection of the most relevant scholarly articles, like Macaulay (2005) and Posth (2016). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything wrong with it. Five articles is hardly long, and it will provide a useful starting point for some readers for further research. I do think there is a case for deleting the external links as they are mostly either out of date or not specific to the subject of this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would of course agree that the relevant papers should be listed in the bibliography, but please try to avoid WP:BOMBARD situations where a single statement is "referenced" with four or five footnotes in a row. This is not useful, you are basically telling the reader to read five papers and then second-guess how these five papers can conceivably be combined into the statement being referenced. Ideally, each reference should be as explicit as possible, as in, what exactly is being referenced based on which specific source. --dab(𒁳) 07:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the article for WP:RS now. Most of the journalistic sources were superfluous, but I have left some of them in alongside the actual citations. I think the only journalistic source left on its own now is the discussion of the historical (1980s) contributions of Wilson et al.; I would say this is defensible.
The article is still plagued by some off-topic tangents, especially the paragraph dedicated to Coop et al. 2009, which is not about OOA at all.[1] The study is about the entirely different kettle of fish discussed under Human genetic variation. --dab(𒁳) 08:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific Criticism and Alternatives views are what's missing in the article. --41.150.232.76 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative views are mentioned, and perhaps too much as there is now a consensus in favour of the theory. Much of the article is dated, especially about the timing and route of the dispersal, and interbreeding with archaic humans, but the picture keeps changing so quickly that it is difficult to keep up. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is too easy to say "the theory" has a consensus. There is, in fact, a basic consensus, but the article as it stood failed to point out what exactly the consensus is. The consensus is limited to the view that the main movement of extant populations outside of Africa is largely due to a migration taking place around 50 kya. The consensus ends there. The "North Africa, 110 kya" result is too recent to be part of the overall consensus. It is presumably the best currently available estimate, but it doesn't form part of the basic "OOA" consensus. Similarly, citations claiming "consensus" that predate 2010 are useless, as the discovery of archaic admixture in the 2010s has significantly altered the picture. Yes, the overall consensus of predominantly "recent single origin" still stands, but this is now modified by plausible evidence of archaic admixture of the order of a few percent. This was simply not known prior to 2010, and while there remain some doubts on how reliable these results are, they are certainly seen as plausible. They in no way "overturn" the general "OOA" scenario, but they certainly modify it with a certain "multiregional" component of OOA I origin.
This is not so much a question of presenting "alternative views", but of distinguishing the basic overall consensus from the various details that are still open to revision. --dab(𒁳) 07:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]