Talk:Nothomyrmecia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this one. delldot ∇. 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, I hope it's a pleasant read! Burklemore1 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking good! Ok, this is mostly just copy editing so don't panic. The main problem I had was trying to follow the technical language as a lay reader. We are not writing for specialists so anything you can do to increase accessibility to someone not already versed in ant-omology (tee hee) would be helpful.

I welcome criticism or comments in regards to the articles prose, especially when I'm trying to get this to FA. I'll get to your comments shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Awkward sentence: "No precise data as to where Crocker collected the insects she sent to Australian entomologist John S. Clark is available" (also 'data' is technically plural).

Did some small fixes.

• "He did so with some hesitation due to its apparent similarity with the Eocene Baltic amber fossil Prionomyrmex which was unknown to him..." Why was he hesitant if he didn't know about the fossil?

Turns out this isn't the case (I note this content was added before I worked on this). He wasn't actually hesitant, infact it was the opposite when he said the ant bared no relation/resemblance to any he knew of. He does mention about the similarities of Nothomyrmecia and Prionomyrmex based on the descriptions provided for the ants, but they could easily be distinguished from each other. I have completely rewritten the sentence, but it would be best if you could check it out.

• Missing an 'as'? "The single waist node and other features such a non-tubulated fourth abdominal segment" Might also be good to split this long sentence into two.

Done and split.

• "transferred both taxons as distinct genera in the older subfamily..." Isn't the plural of taxon 'taxa'?

Done.

• "Studies show that all Hymenoptera insects with a 2n above 52 are ants." What is a 2n? Can it be explained or at least linked to an article?

Linked to ploidy.

• "However, as Nothomyrmecia and Aneuretinae may have shared a common ancestor, the two most likely separated from each other and the first Formicinae ants evolved from the Aneuretinae." This sentence is confusing; might be improved by replacing the ambiguous 'as' and adding a comma before 'and'.

Did some tweaks.

• Why sometimes use the convert template and sometimes not?

Did some edits, so I think I've solved this?

• Is this subject singular or plural? "While they show similar characteristics with Myrmecia, Nothomyrmecia somewhat resembles Oecophylla weaver ants."

Singular I believe, did a small change.

• Can you define or at least link unfamiliar words like 'suberect', 'furcula', 'gonostyliis', 'postpetiole', 'funiculus', 'stridulatory', 'calcariae', 'derived features' and 'hamuli'? Or could there be a diagram with these parts labeled?

Doing.... Done, did some explaining and linked some terms. Removed one term as I couldn't find its meaning.

• "a unique feature not only in ants but in most insects." How is it unique if it's in most insects?

Looks like I worded it awkwardly. The feature is not found in most insects is what I mean.

Reworded.

• "one observation shows a queen consuming a fly." Does this mean "someone once one observed a queen consume a fly"?

Yes, did some small tweaks.

• I would suggest for logical flow to reorganize the info in the first para in Behaviour and ecology to group all info on what they eat together and info on where and when they go out after. If you end with "Workers are mostly found on top of trees" it'd be a good seguay into the next para.

Reorganised I think.

• The last sentence in the second para is kind of a non sequitur: "Unlike some Myrmecia species, Nothomyrmecia does not travel by hopping or jumping."

Removed the sentence altogether, its inclusion isn't very necessary I just realised. :P

• Suggest organizing the first 2 paras like this: Food, how/when/where they go out, rivalries, predators.

Did some reorganisation, not entirely sure though.

• switching plural to singular: "Existing nests may adopt foraging queens looking for an area to begin her colony, as well as workers." Wouldn't the existing nests have to have lost their queen, since they're monogynous?

Done.

• "Colonies with more than one queen contest for dominance" does this mean the queens contest?

Yes. Did some minor tweaks.

• "At maturity, a nest may only contain 50 to 70 adults or 50 to 100 adults." What is the deal with the 70--are these 2 different studies that disagree?

Did some small tweaks.

• Plural/singular disagreement again: "Reasons of brachyptery among Nothomyrmecia queens is possibly due to population structure"

Done.

• It is unclear what the first part of the last para has to do with the second part (beginning "Workers and queens groom each other"). Should this be separate paras?

Split.

• Is the genus singular or plural? "No evidence confirms their populations are declining with colonies genetically depauperate, and its distribution may potentially be extensive"

I am confident that the genus is singular (I think this is the case with others).

Cool, but the issue I was pointing out was the switch from plural to singular with "their populations are" but "its distribution". This happens a lot in this article, maybe you could do a read through looking for cases? delldot ∇. 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll do a thorough check section by section (I'm sure some of these may address other issues you've raised). Burklemore1 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Did some changes, but I cannot be so sure.

• How are these ideas reconciled? "it is unknown how widespread it is, and scientists are unsure if any threats are impacting the species. One of the biggest anthropogenic threats to Nothomyrmecia is habitat destruction and fragmentation by railway lines, roads and wheat fields."

While it is unknown if these threats are impacting Nothomyrmecia, it pretty much says that they are still prominent threats that would easily diminish the population. Whether or not we know, the protection of this species is vital because of these potential threats that will certainly hurt this ant. Perhaps we could say "Among the biggest potential antropogeneic threats...." just so we know they can potentially harm this ant at a grand scale?

Sure, I think something along those lines (threats aren't known for sure, but potential/suspected threats/concerns are...) would wrap it up nicely. delldot ∇. 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, did a small rewrite.

Whew! I think that's all I got for now. Ping me whenever you want me to take a second look. Nice work so far! delldot ∇. 06:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll respond to them over the next couple of days. Sometimes I may not be responsive, but that's because I'm trying to wrap things up with a colossal project I've been working on since July last year (with the help of other editors of course). :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, take your time! Cheers. delldot ∇. 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So far so good. I checked all the image licenses, they're all fine. delldot ∇. 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Apologies if I have been inactive with this. The GA review of Myrmecia regularis and the colossal project I am working on have actually strained me on solving your issues, but I'll try and make this a priority today (in other words I'll attempt to solve all your issues). :) Burklemore1 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, there's no rush. I would only fail a GA nom if it looked like it had been abandoned. You're making good progress! delldot ∇. 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sweet, I'll try and fix as many things as I can today. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Delldot:, all issues have been addressed (well, I attempted to at least). There are most likely some mixups of sigular and plural sentences, but can you do some double checks on the article overall? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Second round

Looking good! Real quick, a few more:

• Weird sentence: "The rediscovery of the species in 1977 confirmed Clark's placement of Nothomyrmecia in isolated position within the Formicidae was universally accepted by the scientific community until 2000."

Rewritten, hopefully.

• I would recommend organizing the 1st and 2nd paras in Description to put info about the head all in one place. i.e. "Workers are nocturnal but navigate by vision, relying on large compound eyes.[32] Mandibles are less specialised than Myrmecia and Prionomyrmex, elongated and triangular." and "The head is longer than its width and broader at the back. It is broadest around the eyes..."

Tried to do some reorganisation, also separated the discussion about its stinger into a new paragraph.

• Unclear: "the wings on the male are long and opposite to a queen".

Done.

• "The cocoons have thin walls that produce meconium." This links to meconium, surely not what is meant here.

The cocoons produce a metabolic waste product.

• "More derived characters of the sting apparatus are known than those of Myrmecia." This sentence doesn't really work in the eggs para, would it work in the para about the sting?

Moved, reorganised and rewritten slightly.

• "Colony construction only occurs when the soil is moist." This sentence doesn't really fit in this para. Could it be worked in somewhere like Distribution and habitat? Or the discussion of new nests in Behaviour and ecology?

Moved to distribution and habitat.

• "Not all colonies are found outside unprotected areas, as some have been found in the Lake Gilles Conservation Park and the Chadinga Conservation Reserve." Does this mean in unprotected areas?

Done.

Sorry, this is super close. I don't know why I didn't catch these on the first read. Great work, thanks for addressing everything from the first set of comments. delldot ∇. 06:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Almost finished with your comments, I'll leave the rest for tomorrow. Honest question, do you reckon this article could be a nice FA candidate once this review is finished, or do you reckon it will be premature? This is the ultimate aim for this special little article so honesty, no matter how harsh is more than welcome. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question, my experience with FAC is quite limited. As far as the prose, I think there were a few things I let slide for GA, but I can point them out on my next read-through. I'm a bio person but not animals or insects specifically, maybe a peer review and request the input of specialists on WP? We're fortunate to have a few that I think you've worked with before. They'd have a better idea than I would about comprehensiveness, focus, and other content stuff. The other thing I've done is email the authors of works cited in the article and ask them to look it over: they're busy people but they're often pleased to get the request and I've had several give me reviews. I'll certainly help you get it as close as I can with my experience. delldot ∇. 17:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, if you want you can freely point these out to make the future FAC process easier. I'm sure a couple of GA reviewers I have worked with or have associated with may take interest. Isn't it a maximum of one peer review though? I have Termite in PR and so far no one has responded but I am unsure if you can have more than one. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I attempted to address your comments, please double check. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with all your responses, everything I have left to complain about is below. I don't know the answer to the question about the PR limit. Seems like if you reviewed a bunch of others that would be a net benefit to the backlog. What if you asked other ant or animal people to review it on the talk page without starting a PR? Might be worth reading up to make sure this would not be an end-run around the rule. What are you thinking of for a timeline for this and Termite? delldot ∇. 07:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, sometimes I usually ask people for their opinions or thoughts, but this is mainly before GA or FAC (I did this for my first FAC because I was nervous with the process). I know other editors who I have proudly worked with so that is a good suggestion, but I'll try and get a broader perspective too. In regards for a timeline, I'm a little unsure what you mean, may need some further explanation. Sorry, I had a bit to drink so I'm pretty dumb as of now. I'll just say I would like Nothomyrmecia promoted to FA before June 2016 because I'm honouring John S. Clark. It will be 60 years since he died, and I think an under appreciated entomologist deserves some praise for discovering this amazing insect. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Round 3

Ok, back with even more hardass standards. Let me know if these make you long for the sweet release of death and I will ease off a bit. The more comments, the better. ;) Thanks for all you have done so far, the article is looking good to me now! Burklemore1 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• "two syntype workers presumably collected near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia." Presumably? Who presumes this? Based on what? The next sentence says "Robert W. Taylor expressed doubt" about the site, so someone must have asserted it.

Removed word, I think it's better to discuss the doubt of its original discovery in the following sentences anyways.

• "Poochera is probably the only town in the world with ant-based tourism, stenciling Nothomyrmecia along the streets." The town stencils them? Maybe something like "they have pictures stenciled on the streets" would be clearer?

Done.

• I think Holy Grail is capitalized.

Done.

• " He did so as the two syntypes" 'as' is awkward when it means 'because' since it suggests contemporality. I like this and this for improving prose.

Changed to "because", definitely fits in.

• "the two can be distinguished by the appearance of the node." Explain or link 'node'.

Seems there was already an explanation given, but I have moved it to this particular sentence.

• Repetitive: "The ant is commonly known as ... living fossil ant because it is sometimes referred as a living fossil."

Did some tweaks.

• Repetitive: "Its specific epithet, macrops (meaning "big eyes"), derives from the Greek words makros, meaning "long, large", and ops, meaning "eyes"." Just drop the parenthetical?

Done I think.

• "antennal scapes extend beyond the occipital border which thicken towards the apex" Unclear antecedent of the 'which thicken'.

Removed.

• "with a furcula (attachment sites..." Is furcula plural?

Changed it to plural.

• Wouldn't it be great to have side-by-side worker and queen photos in the para about their comparitive descriptions?

The one in behaviour and ecology seems alright to use, but I cannot find any specimen photos of a queen. Would be nice unless we use the existing one.

• Link or explain 'pterothoracic sclerites', 'jugal anal lobe', 'venational complement', 'specialised tubercles' 'sensilla', 'mesoscutal structure', 'gonoforceps', 'genetically depauperate'.

Done, also simplified or did further modifications.

• OOh, what about an svg line drawing pointing out all these anatomy things? I wonder if I could help make this. It would be my most difficult Inkscape project yet. Have you found any diagrams like this?

Is this for any ant or Nothomyrmecia so people will actually know what the article is discussing? There is one on the ant article, but this focuses on a Ponerine ant but not on Nothomyrmecia. I note these two ants are very different morphological but we can try and do something with this (I say we should focus on this after this article gets promoted so we don't have to keep this review going). I could become artistic and use my trustworthy left hand to draw a Nothomyrmecia specimen and label it from there? I don't know, it's a suggestion that I would like to do. It would make up for my bad prose. ;)

*Gasp*! I could totally alter that svg! If you give me a picture of what to do to it then I can upload something and alter it as needed according to your feedback. Or have you ever used Inkscape? It's pretty fun to use and not too hard of a learning curve. delldot ∇. 05:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps if I do hand draw Nothomyrmecia or something I was thinking of approaching it like this. The image you see should give you an idea of what I mean since the ant illustrated is pretty much its sibling, both separated into two genera. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool! but my experience is limited to tweaking existing drawings, I wouldn't be able to do something like that in SVG from scratch (or it would be much simpler). delldot ∇. 01:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay, we'll probably go with your plans then. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, let's work on it after promotion as you suggest. Appologies in advance if it's crappity. delldot ∇. 06:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, and no need to apologize, it's better than what I can think of. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• "measuring 2.8 millimetres (0.1 in), 6.3 millimetres (0.2 in) and 11 millimetres (0.4 in), respectively." Is this really how you're supposed to do it? Spelling out and linking each instance of mm?

Delinked, but I'm not sure how to alter it to "mm" only. I'm sure this is simple though but I'm not the smartest person in the universe. ;)

Fixed. The parameter you need is |abbr=on. Might be worth checking the article to make sure spelling out/abbreviating units is consistent throughout the article. delldot ∇. 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• The meconium page linked says "Meconium is the earliest stool of a mammalian infant". Maybe just explain what is meant in this context?

Delinked and explained.

• Citations needed for the 3 sentences beginning "Captured prey items are given to larvae"

Added citations, all of the information is from Taylor 1977.

• I reorganized the para with "The ants are solitary foragers with no evidence that they use chemicals to communicate; instead, workers rely on visual cues to navigate around" and reworded this to "There is no evidence that they use chemicals to communicate..." (rv me if you do not like these changes). That sentence (now two) needs a citation.

Added citation.

• Are the two references to colony 'finding' supposed to actually be 'founding'? "After mating, colonies can be found by one or more queens", "Two queens may find a colony together".

Fixed.

• "Another plausible scenario is that colonies are drought-stressed". What does drought have to do with brachyptery?

Because brachyptery may only occur if colonies are drought-stressed. If a colony is not, it's possible they may be fully winged but no evidence exists.

Is there any theory to explain why? The para could benefit from a sentence explaining how drought might shorten ants' wings; it leaves the reader questioning as is. delldot ∇. 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• The last 3 paras in Behaviour and ecology are unrelated and could use some transition language or reorganization for flow.

I can understand the last two, but the first one? I might need help with this one. Would it be appropriate to promote this to GA and focus on this before we move onto PR, another possible ce or FAC?

Not all of these are deal breakers for GA, let me know if you want to work on these later. I think at this point it's basically promotable. delldot ∇. 07:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll work on these before you promote, I'm more than happy to solve these remaining issues so they are not mentioned at PR or FAC. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed all of your concerns (well, attempted to) and have left additional comments to some of these issues. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This certainly meets all the GA criteria now. Perhaps the few issues I mentioned for FAC that have not been addressed here can be turned into a To do list and addressed over time. Great work! delldot ∇. 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating the review, I highly appreciate the comprehensiveness and professionalism that was put into it. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)