Talk:Iridomyrmex/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Burklemore1 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Dunkleosteus77
editChange the name of the Relationship with other organisms section to Symbiosis
Done.
General comments
editIn the lead, change "...or the rainbow ants...is a genus of ants" to "...or the rainbow ant...is a genus of ant"
Done.
In the Species section, change all the "Iridomyrmex" to "I...."; for example, change "Iridomyrmex adstringatus" to "I. adstringatus" (optional)
Not entirely sure if I should or not (kind of mixed between it), so I'll ping a trustworthy editor who knows what to do. I'm aware it's optional, but it's better to see what other people think.
- @Jonkerz: Pinged!
- I'm the editor responsible for adding most species list to ant articles. This was some two years ago, and at the time most lists were already using the long format -- some of the abbreviated lists were changed by me, some by other editors. I prefer full names in lists, but I do not mind using the short form if the community thinks that's better. Either way, lists should be consistent in articles, and the long (actually "non-short") format is the default style. It's easy to change the format in this article -- I'll do it myself if you consider that a requirement for GA -- but making a decision that covers all (ant) species lists would make future editing easier. On a side note, I'd love to hear what other editors think about this issue, because I plan on writing a bot that could update all lists with the most recent data from AntCat. jonkerz ♠talk 10:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since this is optional, I believe the reviewer doesn't really mind how we lay this out, but more of a suggestion. We'll just have to see what he reckons first though. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- You don't have to do it to pass GA Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 17:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since this is optional, I believe the reviewer doesn't really mind how we lay this out, but more of a suggestion. We'll just have to see what he reckons first though. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm the editor responsible for adding most species list to ant articles. This was some two years ago, and at the time most lists were already using the long format -- some of the abbreviated lists were changed by me, some by other editors. I prefer full names in lists, but I do not mind using the short form if the community thinks that's better. Either way, lists should be consistent in articles, and the long (actually "non-short") format is the default style. It's easy to change the format in this article -- I'll do it myself if you consider that a requirement for GA -- but making a decision that covers all (ant) species lists would make future editing easier. On a side note, I'd love to hear what other editors think about this issue, because I plan on writing a bot that could update all lists with the most recent data from AntCat. jonkerz ♠talk 10:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Description section, remove "The central projection is either weakly developed or well developed"
Removed.
In the Life cycle and reproduction section, wikilink "Oligogynous"
Linked.
Appears I have addressed all of your issues, including the refs (something is screwing up the coding in the reviews reference section which is why I'm writing here). I have pinged an editor in regards to the species section. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
References
editFor refs such as Braby 2004, where it is used repeatedly but kept as different refs and the only difference is the page number (like Braby 2004, p.246 and Braby 2004, p.248), use the template ; for example, with Braby 2004, do <ref name=B2004>Braby 2004</ref>{{rp|246}} (where 246 is the page number), <ref name=B2004/>{{rp|248}}, <ref name=B2004/>{{rp|234}}; this is optional.
- You don't have to do this.
- The article looks less cluttered so I just went along with it. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- You don't have to do this.
Final comment
edit- Is this written in Australian English? If so, place the template {{Australian English}} to the article's talk page
Done.
It'll pass
- Thank you for reviewing! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)