Talk:Novomessor albisetosus

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Novomessor albisetosus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 13:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nice to see you back and working, you were away for quite a while, weren't you? Anyhow, I'll give this a full review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for conducting this review. Yeah I was away for awhile and I intended to be regularly active now, but my computer broke. However I can still work from my mobile. I look forward to working with you again regarding my GA nominations. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Since there are so few images here, why not show this one of the ant from above[1], which is how people would mostly view it anyway?

Done. You might have to check to see if it looks ok on computer.

Now the image of the head clashes with the taxobox, and the dorsal view clashes with the below header. Perhaps left align the head, right align the dorsal view (so it will also face towards the text), and left align the map? FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is there no English common name for this species? Seems strange for an animal known from the US.

I will look around. I haven't seen much regarding common names for this ant or its genus, so I would assume at best a given name would apply to all members. Nonetheless I will see what I can do.

Done. Called "Desert harvester ant". Burklemore1 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• You don't present all writers mentioned in the same way.

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• "his journal article "Die Formiciden der Vereinigten Staaten von Nordamerika."" I don't think this is necessary, anyone can look for the title in the source section.

Removed. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• "originally called Aphaenogaster albisetosa" Then it should be listed as a synonym.

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• "described a new species, Novomessor cockerelli minor" That is a subspecies trinomial.

Fixed. Burklemore1 (talk)

• "was synonymized with N. albisetosus two years later" By who and why?

Done, but the source provides no reason. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Novomessor was synonymized in 1974, and so N. albisetosus was moved to Aphaenogaster" First say what it was synonymised with, and end with "and N. albisetosus was thereby moved to that genus". You also need to mention by who and why.

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• "However, scientists revived the genus in 1976" Again, who and why?

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• "In 2015, a phylogenetic study" By who?

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• "revived from synonymy to reinstate N. albisetosus as one of the three known species." Wording seems confusing, why not just say "with N. albisetosus as one of the three known species"?

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• There are terms in the description that could be explained, such as ferruginous, petiole, clypeus, somites, sensilla, labrum, epinotum, pronotum.

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• You could mention what the other species in the genus are, and how they are interrelated.

Would this be added into the taxonomic or description section? If it is the latter should it be placed before or after the last paragraph? Burklemore1 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In taxonomy, where you already go into phylogenetics. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Added some info. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• "are smaller (measuring 6 millimeters (0.2 in))" I think it would be better to place the measurement between commas than in parenthesis.

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• "covered with weak rugose" Rugosities?

Fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Would be better to merge the first and second sentences of taxonomy. You could start by saying "this secies was first described as", and using the original name.

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• There are two clarification needed tags in the distribution section.

Fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• "However, they do not show a particular preference for seeds, and insect pieces only accounted for 6% of items collected by N. albisetosus" What is their main food then?

Neither source explains their main source of food. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Army ants prey on N. albisetosus." What kind of army ant? There are supposedly many species this term is applied to...

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• The fixes look good, so I'll now pass the article. It could be nice to note the meaning of the scientific name, but I doubt it is easy to find a source for. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive review. I can always look around and see what I can find. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)