Talk:Myrmecia maxima/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 14:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Most of the Distribution + Identity paragraph really belongs in taxonomy.
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | More on morphology and distribution. Also add about ecology.
This is not possible unless we just recycle info about the general morphology and ecology of Myrmecia (large, predacious ants that are omnivores, which feed on nectar and capture insects for their larvae). This would be original research, so I advise against this. I should also note that requesting information and failing it will completely go against the criteria itself (as the GA criteria are a standard, not personal preference). This also pops up: "Point (a) means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects." |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Condense taxonomy section.
Anything in particular you would like removed? A lot of the information seems pretty important and necessary, so what would you like removed or cut down? |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Can you find at least one image on the ant?
Unfortunately not because we are dealing with a species that doesn't even have a type specimen. Such scenario we are dealing with is extremely rare and the ant itself may never be identified. However, since it's still classified as a valid species with no evidence to invalidate it, it's still automatically notable here. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
At present, I think this article is somewhat confused. It is presented (and, it seems, the reviewer has read it as) an article about a species, but in reality, if an article was warranted (note that I say if) it should be an article about the name. From p. 58 of Ride and Taylor 1973: "The name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, occurs in a descriptive vocabulary of the Aboriginal language. The description is undoubtedly of an ant of the genus Myrmecia but the name lacks a type specimen. If a neotype were to be selected from the geographical area to which the description relates, (i.e. the south-west of Western Australia), the name F. maxima would certainly be a senior synonym of one of the names, M. regularis, M. nigriceps, M. vindex or Myrmecia vindex basirufa Forel, 1907[.]" However, those authors are clearly not in favour of using the name. (The article is basically "This name is used a couple of times. It's not a species in its own right. We shouldn't be using the name.") This is the only peer-reviewed publication (well, it's in an academic journal) you cite which even mentions the name, and it's literally only a page long. I can't see there being much room for this "species" on Wikipedia at all, and I certainly don't think it warrants an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hm, so is it best to just redirect it to the Myrmecia article then? Burklemore1 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- That would be one option; perhaps a referenced explanatory note after the list of species in the M. gulosa species group would suffice as far as mentions go? Even then, I wonder if this is just trivia- there must be a lot of forgotten names like this around. I'm trying to remember who I know on WP who may be able to offer an informed opinion on this... 18:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'd agree this text might make more sense merged into Myrmecia (ant)... A somewhat similar precedent could be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_vulture#Bartram.27s_.22painted_vulture.22 FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've asked Cwmhiraeth for an opinion on this, though I stated that I was concerned in regards to reviewers asking for info that cannot be attained. She could give a pretty good opinion in regards to the current discussion we are having though. The link FunkMonk provided is a good example, though I'm going to avoid writing a large paragraph about it if we should expand on it. I'm not good at explaining these things so I may need assistance if we are going to leave notes or paragraphs. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have been asked to give an opinion on this matter. Although the points raised by Josh Milburn are valid, this review should be concentrating on the good article criteria and whether they are met, and my impression on a single reading of the article is that they are. Although one would expect in a normal species article mention of behaviour etc, this is not obligatory when such information is unavailable. When the review is finished, any further discussion can take place on the talk page in the normal way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would have thought that the current issue raises questions of stability. Regardless, I think that the writing is a little clumsy in places; for example:
- "A member of the genus Myrmecia in the subfamily Myrmeciinae, George Fletcher Moore provided the first description of the ant in 1842."
- "(which he originally named the ant Formica maxima)"
- "It is also still"
- "and due to other well known Myrmecia ants abundant there, M. maxima is possibly a senior synonym of one of them"
- "which are well known among the insect fauna"
- "and the ant was now known as M. maxima"
- "The name Formica maxima has never been used in most publications regarding Myrmecia except for Moore's second edition of his 1842 book, and two editions published by Rosendo Salvado, a Spanish missionary."
- "once thought to be a suggestion for neotype selection"
- I think it's time someone made a decision about what is to be done here. A RfC may be appropriate, but, either way, I don't think promoting to GA status would be appropriate at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I should have said in my post above that the GA criteria are "largely" met, because if I were the reviewer, I would probably ask for some changes to the prose. The article is stable at the moment and I doubt that it should fail on the grounds that it might become unstable some time in the future. I would just assess it on the GA criteria, unless the matter were referred elsewhere. If that were to happen, the review would need to await the outcome of whatever process was involved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the absence, personal life and all that got in the way. Regarding Josh's comments, I'll get onto these prose issues he has raised once I wake up before I go out for new years. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Did some rewrites, more to come. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- On another note, I wouldn't see this review as fair if the article is failed because of non-existent information and images. Cwmhiraeth has pointed out that the article "largely" meets the GA criteria (which she clarified in her second comment), but minor changes to the prose are needed to fulfill the full criteria. I also do not see how this article is unstable. Josh's points are reasonable, but these points should not be automatically approached as entirely correct if we look at both sides of the situation and have a further discussion into the sources themselves and such. Authoritative sources such as Antcat, AntWeb and Hymenoptera Name Server recognise this taxon as a valid species as well which should be taken into consideration. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem is the quality of the content, it is more about setting a precedent about the scope. It has generally been avoided to write articles about names and synonyms only, and such info is usually merged somewhere. So no one is arguing that the text isn't good, just whether it warrants a standalone article. Size wise, it wouldn't a problem to merge. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Perhaps we could initiate an rfc and see what others think? Burklemore1 (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem is the quality of the content, it is more about setting a precedent about the scope. It has generally been avoided to write articles about names and synonyms only, and such info is usually merged somewhere. So no one is arguing that the text isn't good, just whether it warrants a standalone article. Size wise, it wouldn't a problem to merge. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- On another note, I wouldn't see this review as fair if the article is failed because of non-existent information and images. Cwmhiraeth has pointed out that the article "largely" meets the GA criteria (which she clarified in her second comment), but minor changes to the prose are needed to fulfill the full criteria. I also do not see how this article is unstable. Josh's points are reasonable, but these points should not be automatically approached as entirely correct if we look at both sides of the situation and have a further discussion into the sources themselves and such. Authoritative sources such as Antcat, AntWeb and Hymenoptera Name Server recognise this taxon as a valid species as well which should be taken into consideration. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Did some rewrites, more to come. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the absence, personal life and all that got in the way. Regarding Josh's comments, I'll get onto these prose issues he has raised once I wake up before I go out for new years. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I should have said in my post above that the GA criteria are "largely" met, because if I were the reviewer, I would probably ask for some changes to the prose. The article is stable at the moment and I doubt that it should fail on the grounds that it might become unstable some time in the future. I would just assess it on the GA criteria, unless the matter were referred elsewhere. If that were to happen, the review would need to await the outcome of whatever process was involved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would have thought that the current issue raises questions of stability. Regardless, I think that the writing is a little clumsy in places; for example:
- I have been asked to give an opinion on this matter. Although the points raised by Josh Milburn are valid, this review should be concentrating on the good article criteria and whether they are met, and my impression on a single reading of the article is that they are. Although one would expect in a normal species article mention of behaviour etc, this is not obligatory when such information is unavailable. When the review is finished, any further discussion can take place on the talk page in the normal way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've asked Cwmhiraeth for an opinion on this, though I stated that I was concerned in regards to reviewers asking for info that cannot be attained. She could give a pretty good opinion in regards to the current discussion we are having though. The link FunkMonk provided is a good example, though I'm going to avoid writing a large paragraph about it if we should expand on it. I'm not good at explaining these things so I may need assistance if we are going to leave notes or paragraphs. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment regarding redirecting this article to Myrmecia: I've email the AntCat team asking whether Myrmecia maxima is a valid species (there's a technical reason that it may be listed as valid even if it's not, and/or their database may not be up to date). jonkerz ♠talk 06:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- The page does say there are 95 species, but the specific one listed as "valid" is infact a synonym. (not M maxima btw). M. maxima is seen as valid but a reply from antcat will definitely help. If this is invalid I will happily redirect this to the primary topic article (the genus itself). Burklemore1 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Gug01, have you come to any decision with this yet, or are you waiting until we know if this species is actually valid or not? Burklemore1 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Burklemore1: This is a well-written article. My problem with it is whether it merits to be an article in the first place (does the species exist, is their enough information for it to be an article, etc). Gug01 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers Gug01, I apologise that this article had to be problematic for you. We'll probably wait until jonkerz gives us an answer. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Myrmecia maxima is now listed as unavailable by AntCat, I suppose that closes this review. That's somewhat unfortunate, because the article covers most of what there is to know about this name. For what it's worth, in a genus like Myrmecia with 90+ species, I do think we should keep separate articles on all valid species per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, even if they would likely not survive a revision of the genus. jonkerz ♠talk 07:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think all or most of the info can be saved, though, in the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, I kind of assumed no content could be reused. For lack of a better word, isn't it "random" to even mention an "unidentifiable and suppressed, likely synonym anyways, with no type material, described in 1842" species in the main article of a genus with 94 species? In which section would we put it? jonkerz ♠talk 07:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Would be under taxonomy, perhaps as a footnote, but yeah, probably in much summarised form. As mentioned earlier, there is precedence for this (in an FA, no less): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_vulture#Bartram.27s_.22painted_vulture.22 FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- The vulture example is interesting, but I'm not sure how close the parallels are. I can't imagine that this warrants more than two sentences in the genus article (probably in a footnote, and that's if it needs to be mentioned at all) but I think we can all agree that it's time for the GA review to be closed. This could plausibly remain as an article about a taxonomic controversy (though I would not support that, as I'm not convinced that it's independently notable) or it could be redirected to the genus article, but, either way, the current article seems to be inappropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- If we can now, Gug can close the review and one of us can redirect the article to the genus. If that's the case what would we do with this page itself? Redirect it to M. maxima? Burklemore1 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I will close the review by failing the article. I find it is a real pity but I agree with the idea of redirecting it and summarizing it in the Myremica page. Gug01 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- This page can probably stay as it is; I don't think there're any guidelines suggesting otherwise. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I will close the review by failing the article. I find it is a real pity but I agree with the idea of redirecting it and summarizing it in the Myremica page. Gug01 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- If we can now, Gug can close the review and one of us can redirect the article to the genus. If that's the case what would we do with this page itself? Redirect it to M. maxima? Burklemore1 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- The vulture example is interesting, but I'm not sure how close the parallels are. I can't imagine that this warrants more than two sentences in the genus article (probably in a footnote, and that's if it needs to be mentioned at all) but I think we can all agree that it's time for the GA review to be closed. This could plausibly remain as an article about a taxonomic controversy (though I would not support that, as I'm not convinced that it's independently notable) or it could be redirected to the genus article, but, either way, the current article seems to be inappropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Would be under taxonomy, perhaps as a footnote, but yeah, probably in much summarised form. As mentioned earlier, there is precedence for this (in an FA, no less): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_vulture#Bartram.27s_.22painted_vulture.22 FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, I kind of assumed no content could be reused. For lack of a better word, isn't it "random" to even mention an "unidentifiable and suppressed, likely synonym anyways, with no type material, described in 1842" species in the main article of a genus with 94 species? In which section would we put it? jonkerz ♠talk 07:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think all or most of the info can be saved, though, in the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Myrmecia maxima is now listed as unavailable by AntCat, I suppose that closes this review. That's somewhat unfortunate, because the article covers most of what there is to know about this name. For what it's worth, in a genus like Myrmecia with 90+ species, I do think we should keep separate articles on all valid species per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, even if they would likely not survive a revision of the genus. jonkerz ♠talk 07:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers Gug01, I apologise that this article had to be problematic for you. We'll probably wait until jonkerz gives us an answer. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Burklemore1: This is a well-written article. My problem with it is whether it merits to be an article in the first place (does the species exist, is their enough information for it to be an article, etc). Gug01 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Gug01, have you come to any decision with this yet, or are you waiting until we know if this species is actually valid or not? Burklemore1 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)