Talk:Prionomyrmecini/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 4 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.
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).	Good work.
	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.	Description needs to be expanded. Just noticed about the description that there are many descriptions weaved into the Distribution paragraph. It would be useful to move some of the info into the Description paragraph, or maybe merge the two. Gug01 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Expanded the description a little bit, but I have merged the two sections. The Behavior paragraph should also be expanded, especially a bit on the passing of the colony from mother to daughter. This should be easy because source 21 in its abstract alone has enough information to add two or three sentences. Don't focus only on the inheritance, please. Will look through. Is there anything else other than that you want more of? Not entirely clear as to what you would like. No problems. Gug01 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Taxonomy is disproportionately large, maybe cut down on the paragraph. Condensed. Please check if the article is now focused. No problems/ Gug01 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
	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.	But more editors would be good, not that the lack of many involved editors will affect my decision in any way.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good work. Thanks for reviewing!

Cheers for taking this on. I won't be able to respond to your comments for most of today because my hands are fully occupied, but I will come back later tonight. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)