Talk:Zigrasimecia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Good to see some ants again, I may review this slowly, a bit busy these days, but it seems the review queue is long anyway, so it is probably fine. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, this year has been quite slow for ants but I'm still happy nonetheless with the outcome. If I wasn't so busy there'd be more ant articles up. Feel free to take your time, I have noticed my nominations have been waiting much longer for a reviewer these days. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• At first glance, it seems there are quite a few unexplained technical terms, especially under description, and some terms that are only linked at second occurrence.

Doing... Done some changes.

• I'm thinking the classification part could become a subsection of the history section, now it's a very big, continuous block of text...

Done.

• "and -mecia which is a commonly used suffix in ant generic names." But what does it mean?

Unsure. I'd assume "ant", based on what I have seen when working with Myrmecia.

• "Zigrasimecia tonsora is known from a solitary adult fossil, the holotype" and " The holotype specimen is composed of a mostly-complete dealate adult female", seems the bolded part should be moved to the second part? A bit odd that it is described a little bit in each sentence...

Done, I think.

• " this includes the holotype, numbered JWJ-Bu18a, and many paratypes " Types of what? You only reveal the name further below, but it doesn't make chronological sense to present these as type specimens before their naming has been mentioned.

Did a few changes.

• "He named it Z. ferox; its specific epithet is from the Latin word ferox" Redundant, it's the same word.

Fixed.

• "Despite the similarities, it is unlikely that they are actually certain castes of the same species, especially that Z. tonsora is a dealated female" Does the bolded part mean "especially because"?

Yes.

• Crown group also needs explanation.

Done.

• "birds eye view" I don't think that term is appropriate for such a close view, upper might be better.

Done.

• "Zigrasimecia is possibly a generalist predator." Why present tense?

Done.

@FunkMonk:, mind having a quick look? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice, I'll review the last parts (description, intro) soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• "The junction of the mesoscutellum (middle part of the scutellum and the propdeums dorsal surface are indistinct; on two Z. ferox specimens, these body parts are slightly angled." Seems part of the parenthesis is missing.

Fixed.

• There are still many unexplained technical terms, you fixed many of them, but could maybe be good to add some more explanations, especially in description.

@FunkMonk: Did a few more edits, what about now?

• "A pair of oval-shaped, yet melanized patches" Why the "yet"?

Removed.

• "It is also concave-shaped than it is straight." Seems a word is missing.

Done.

• As you may have noticed, I have done some edits myself.
• "which existed in the Cretaceous" Add period.

Done.

• "Mobility was probably important because its head was highly movable" This seems a bit like saying "speed was important, because it was very fast"...

Fixed, I think.

• "Zigrasimecia most likely interacted with Gerontoformica" Explain this is another extinct ant.

Done.

• Oh, seems everything has been dealt with now? FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope so. I've tried stamping out the complicated terms you have mentioned, but I'm not sure if there's anymore I missed. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me then, will pass now! I see there was an issue on the talk page about the text maybe being too technical, which someone might bring up during a FAC, but as is, I think more information is better than less, and it can be hard saying anything meaningful about fossil taxa without going into detail. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely true, but luckily I am getting my head around these procedures. Thank you for the review! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)