Talk:Myrmecia (ant)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

Image review

The images you've found have dumbfounded me, and nearly all are within copyright laws and are fairly relevant. You've done a good job.

• What is the source of File:Jumping jack male.jpg?

The original file was uploaded by the author (User:Fir0002)

• Add {{PD-US}} to every image that does not currently have it.

I'm rather curious with this, because normally you add "public domain" to images or works that are "intellectual property rights have expired,[1] have been forfeited,[2] or are inapplicable." I also think works can be in public domain if the original author is willing to do so.

General comments

• Is this article written in Australian English? If so, add the template {{Australian English}} to the article's talk page.

Done.

• State the common names for the the "Species group" table, and scrap the ref division and add them into the group name division. Also, state the species common name and then the binomial name in the article. While on the subject, you might want to have someone else check if that list is allowed against GA criteria.

I'm not sure if a creating a new division for the common names would be necessary. All of these species are referred as "bulldog ants" and many other names that are provided, hence it would be redundant since the names are already given. However, M. pilosula group and M. nigrocincta group are always referred as jack jumpers due to their jumping behaviour, which could alternatively be bracketed after the species group name so this tells the reader the common name is only restricted to specific species. In regards to your last comment, I have based it off the list found in Cucurbita, an FA-class article, but I may discuss this with another editor. Also removed the ref section.

In that case, state whether they're known as jumper ants or bulldog ants next to the binomial name

In its own section of the table, or?

well, you have table titled "Group name" which says things like "M. aberrans species group", so what I want you to do is change it to "M. aberrans (bulldog/jumper) ant". Do you understand?

I just found a link that gives common names for six species groups (See here). I'll add a new division and provide the common names where available, please disregard my previous comment on the belief the names were not available.

• Try merging the contents of "Phylogeny" and "Taxonomy", because "Phylogeny" talks about evolution in the first three sentences, and the rest is all taxonomy.

Done.

• You might want to double check the translation of the Aboriginal name for it, because ancient Aborigines have never been in contact with lions.

Page 54 and page 58 state the translation. Would it be necessary to add a note about its possible inaccuracy?

Yes. By the way, is there a translation for "toon-jee" and "injabadii", the two other aboriginal names provided?

Alright, I'll add that in a moment. As for the other names, I couldn't find any source (including the one cited) that gives a translation. Perhaps I should tweak the note to avoid OR.

Get a rough translation from a translator site on google. There's bound to be something.

Alright, I tried to retrieve a translation there and nothing came up. I have decided to remove the sentence.

• In some places, it switches from past to future tense, as with "Brown would later classify the genus Promyrmecia as a synonym of Myrmecia in 1953" in the "Taxonomy" section.

Rewritten. If there are more cases of this, can you list them down so I can fix them? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the "Description" section, why did you link Camponotus bendigensis to an article (that doesn't exist) and not M. fulvipes? Try not to link anything to an article that doesn't exist.

It's advised against delinking articles that do not exist. It has been proven red links help build Wikipedia. Even FA crtieria isn't against redlinks. It is only a problem for FL candidates if there are too many of them. Also, M. fulvipes has already been linked (in the table).

• Is there any hypothesis on how the ants got from Australia to New Zealand, with a 4,000 km ocean barrier?

I'll look through the sources and see what they say. Aside from that, it is most likely due to human activities (queens must have been on ships, because the nests were mainly found at ports).

Ah, I found out how it was introduced. It was believed the ants originated from a wooden crate found in a front yard that was originally from Australia.

Has this happened anywhere else?

Not entirely sure, such case of an exotic Myrmecia species is only known from that report.

Under "Diversity" in the taxobox, you put "94 species". Change it to "94 subspecies" or "Nine species".

I have a feeling you have the species and species-groups mixed up. There are indeed 94 species that are grouped in nine species groups (I don't recall any subspecies, and M. maxima isn't assigned to any group because no type specimen is available). These groups contain species who are very similar to each other, but they are still distinct enough to be classified as species.

• I haven't read the entire article yet, so I might be back with some more comments. All-in-all, you've done a great job with the article.

Thank you, and thank you again for taking this on. Whether or not this process takes awhile due to the articles size of overall quality, it will be exciting. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence "In Tasmania 3% of the human population" in the lead is lacking a comma separating the subject and the predicate. Add a comma after "Tasmania".

Done.

Citations review

I'm not going to do much in the way of citations, just letting you know. I'm not going in any particular order. I've asked for a second opinion who I hope will be more familiar with the citation expectations.

No worries, I will go leave a message on someones talk page and see if they can do an additional review.

• Is "Antcat", ref#2, a reliable source?

Yes, it's an authoritative source in terms of taxonomy and has been cited in numerous high quality ant articles. The author is also Barry Bolton, who is among the most respected and reputable myrmecologist known.

• ref #133's (New, Tim R.) and ref #276's (Kynett, Harold) isbn numbers, do not lead me to the correct page, did you copy/paste it correctly?

Done with ref no. 133, but here is the isbn link of that book on Amazon (for ref no. 276).

• Add url's where applicable as with ref#143 (Archer)

Ref no. 143 does not have open access. Also, identifiers such as doi's, pmid's and such usually serve as urls to their respective abstract pages.

• refs #135 and #136 (Wheeler) lead to the same page, as well as ref #162 through #165 (Schmid-Hempel), you just provided different page numbers. Actually, you've done this in many places. Use {{rp|page number(s)}} directly after the correct citations, <ref>Wheeler, 1933</ref>{{rp|43}}.

I'll need further elaboration with this one.

Well, you have "Schmid-Hempel 1998, p. 294" which would probably be formatted as <ref>Schmid-Hempel 1998, p. 294</ref> in the text, and you also have "Schmid-Hempel 1998, p. 296" which would probably be formatted as <ref>Schmid-Hempel 1998, p. 296</ref>. Instead of having two different refs linking to the same page, but different pages, use the template {{rp|}}. So, the two given refs should be instead formatted as <ref name=example_name>Schmid-Hempel 1998</ref>{{rp|294}} and <ref name=example_name>{{rp|296}}, where you use one ref instead of two refs linking to the same page, and the {{rp|}} describing the page number. Do you understand now?

I do, but how I cited them is still correct. For example, my current FAC just had its source review done and the user, who has written more than 100 FA's did not suggest any change with the refs of Hölldobler & Wilson 1990 p. blah blah.

I suppose this is just a matter of your discretion

Many FA articles have followed this.

• Why do you have a reference for "Myrmecia is one of the most well known genera of ants"? Does it contain statistics or something?

E.O. Wilson listed them among the most well known, a long with Iridomyrmex. Camponotus, Pheidole and Solenopsis.

• ref #238 (Brown) is citing a sentence about how high these ants can jump, but the doi leads me to a page about their venom. Please move this to the "Venom" or "Sting" section.

You mean ref no. 237? I was given full access to it via download and it states this in the introduction (just like a general overall before going into other details).

No, I mean ref #238. It's citing the sentence " Some species, particularly those of the M. nigrocincta and M. pilosula species groups, are capable of jumping several inches when they are agitated after their nest has been disturbed", but it talks about the venom.

Well, when you raised the issue it was ref no. 237. And as I said, it said this in the introduction of the article that is only available if you get full text.

In that case, could you find another ref that talks only about their jumping capabilities?

That really isn't necessary if it's already mentioned in a reliable source anyway. And plus, there is already a reference that discusses their jumping behaviour.

• When it says "although the conservation status needs updating" in "Interactions with humans", is it talking about the IUCN redlist ref?

Yes, it was last updated in 1996, so it will need updating sometime.

Shouldn't you just find another source?

Whether or not it needs updating, the IUCN is still a reliable source and no recent source can be given about its data. So we'll need to stick what we have until it is updated or a brand new source is available.

Have you tried looking for another, more recent, source?

Yes, with no luck.

• For GAs, the source requirements are much more lax than for FA, so what Dunkleosteus has done above is good enough, even worthy of a FAC review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. Well, in light of this information, I support. You've done a really good job on this, and expect another review from me on your other ant articles. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 15:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks everyone. Specifically thank you for initiating the review. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)