Talk:Green-head ant/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this guy. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Long time, no see in GA. Thanks for taking this on! Burklemore1 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, after only reviewing old, boring nominations for the GA cup, it's nice to review some animals again... FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That's understandable, I'd feel the same way if I was in your situation. Btw, I may not be very responsive for the time being, got a few personal problems going on. I will try and breeze this though! Burklemore1 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Take your time! FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I may be able to get a lot of your issues solved sometime tomorrow (11:43 pm here atm). Burklemore1 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• You don't need to mention the name of this ant in the captions (done twice), and I'm not sure why it needs to be mentioned that the illustration was "published".

Done illustration photo, will do other ones shortly.

Done.

• "from a syntype worker" Based on?

Yes.

• "syntype worker or queen" Why "or"?

Changed.

• Was ther eone or more specimens? It would only be syntypes if there was more than one, I believe.

Queen and worker. This wasn't clear until further studies were initiated.

• "These specimens were later reviewed with the designation of a lectotype" As in a lectotype was chosen from the syntype series? Seems it could be explained more clearly. And state when, "later" is too vague.

Done.

• "Mayr's original classification" Why original, when he was not the first to name it?

Hm, would the tiny change "reclassifcation" be most helpful? See what you think.

Yeah, sounds more fitting. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "moved it again, this time to Ectatomma" But it was already in a subgenus of Ectatomma, so how could he move it to Ectatomma?

Did some edits.

• "named the ant Rhytidoponera metallica" That would be the second time it was moved to Rhytidoponera then?

Originally named Ectatomma (Rhytidoponera) metallicum.

• "been treated as forms." Should be linekd and explained what a "form" is.

Done, I think.

• "described under different names through irrelevant and vague characterisations" Very loaded wording.

I agree with this, though I have no idea what other words I could use in fear I change the meaning.

Something like "inadequate" would be less loaded. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, done.

• "After examining collected specimens, Brown also notes" Why suddenly present tense?

Done.

• "alter Cecil Crawley states that the" Likewise.

Done.

• "An examination of R. varians shows" Same.

Done.

• "Under the present classification" When and by who?

When = today, who = based on antcat (due to that my best guess would be Barry Bolton, perhaps the most authoritative myrmecologist today).

By when, I mean when was it first proposed?

I'll look on the Hymenoptera Name Server. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Best guess is 2003 by Barry Bolton, because Ectatomminae was not recognised as a subfamily until that year, and genera such as Ectatomma and Rhytidoponera were moved there. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if it can only be a guess, I think it's better to leave it out... FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would only cause further confusion. Unless we omit "under the present classification".

• Nothing on their evolution and relationships to other ants?

Tbh I haven't really found anything about their evolution or relationship with other ants. I believe there is a paper discussing about the phylogeny of Rhytidoponera as a whole, but unfortunately it's unpublished. The antwiki article mentions about gamergate workers and the loss of the queen caste in most Rhytidoponera species, though members of the R. impressa species group have fully winged queens. That'd make an interesting phylogenetic study. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know gamergate had this meaning as well! FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Would be very interesting if gamergate ants have any form of genetic relationship with other gamergates. For some odd reason this only occurs in primitive ants. Although Nothomyrmecia does not.... Burklemore1 (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• There are many uncommon terms under description that should be explained.

Will look through.... I've linked these terms instead.

• Likewise with behaviour, but much less.

Could you provide some terms?

Just from one paragraph, ferruginous, ovate, emarginate, striae, subhyaline, should give you an idea. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks, will do this once I have slept.

Done. Does everything appear to be OK now, FunkMonk? Burklemore1 (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

For that paragraph, yes, but it was just a sample, the following paragraphs have the same problem. In general, it is a good idea to re-read through a section, and every time you reach a word where you would think a layreader would be unable to understand it (for example everything linked to Wiktionary), add an explanation in parenthesis. It goes for all the rest of the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Did a read and ironed any complicated term I saw.

• "resemble each other, making the two castes hard to distinguish from each other" The bolded part seems redundant.

Done.

• "The workers are slightly smaller than the queens, measuring 6 mm (0.24 in)." Why is this mentioned so far down, when the length f the queen is mentioned near the top of the section?

These sentences are describing each ant caste, I've split them into paragraphs and did some reorganisation.

• Why do yopu describne colour in two different paragraphs of description? Seems like it introduces a lot of redundancies. I'd keep all colour description in one paragraph, and move the paragraph describing the larvae last in the section.

The mention of colour in the earlier paragraphs are restricted to the specific caste. The colour discussed later is talking about the metallic variation seen in all castes together.

• "In areas with better rainfall" Loaded, say more instead?

Done.

• "recently collected in the town between 2001 and 2003" Redundant and "recentism".

Removed.

• "but no specimens have recently been collected there." Better to say since when, and remove "recently".

Done.

• "do not discriminate among rocks according their thickness or temperature." According to?

Oops, rookie error I believe. Done.

• A really exemplary use of images here, I think. Personally, I always move range maps into the taxobox to free space for more images in the article, but up to you.

Thank you, I'll think about that. I think there may be some images of their nests, but I'm not sure (would be a nice addition). This is not a problem for me if there aren't any, I only have to go to my backyard! Burklemore1 (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Seems a bit odd that the sting is only mentioned under human relations? I'm sure they must use it for other things than stinging humans?

Done.

• I now see some images are forced to a specific pixel size, this is generally discouraged.

Done, but hesitant with the specimen images in "Description". If I remove those, the images will various uneven sizes.

• "They are characterised as scavengers and predators" Sounds as it is some kind of allegation...

Done.

• "removal of the capitula" Which is what?

Added a link.

• "In one experiment, three captive colonies were given three different diets:" I'm not sure what the point of this study was?

Nutritional responses, and found that specific diets can alter mortality rates.

• "primitive general predators, in contrast to the more advanced species," and what do the latter do differently?

Added an example.

• Seems this ant is an omnivore, yet you have two paragraphs under diet that categorically calls the either "predators" or "seed-eaters". Would perhaps be good to start out with a statement that they are both.

Done.

• "Such results have been seen in the western honey bee" Also been seen?

Done.

• " by marking the ground." If they don't make trails, how do they mark?

Got this wrong. They actually rarely use trail pheromones unless they need to. For example, these ants are solitary and only recruit nestmates if they need assistance (such as carrying a large prey item).

• "have been characterised as low-flying ants." Again, if they are this, why say they have been characterised as this?

Done.

• "They have been observed entering colonies other than those from which they originated." Isn't this the norm among ants?

Removed.

• "and return the nest." To?

Oops. Done.

• What is the function of a queen if it returns to the nest?

I don't think the sentence in which this refers to was even relevant, I don't believe they do.

• "is called budding, (also called "satelliting" or "fractionating")," You don't need both comma and parenthesis, choose one.

Done.

• "queenright colonies in non-claustral, haplometrotic conditions," No idea what any of this means.

Done.

• Doesn't seem to be stated clearly, but does a fertilised worker who starts a colony become the queen? Or do all gamergates contribute with young?

All contribute with young.

• "These ants range in size from small to medium" Not stated outside intro, and seems rather meaningless. What does Small and medium even mean in this context?

It means its body size (length specifically).

But compared to what? "medium sized anr" doesn't mean much unless you know what size a "large" or "small" ant is... FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I've decided to remove the redundant statement.

• "Among the most widespread of all insects" In Australia, I guess?

Yes.

• What does "pony" refer to in the common name variety?

This is something that has interested me, I haven't really found much. One cited source sounds promising, but the link is dead. I gotta find another one to see if discusses this. Btw, haven't found much time to get to this GA, but I promise to get it sorted. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Status request

FunkMonk, Burklemore1, there hasn't been any activity on the article or this review since June 30. What is left to be done, or are there issues that haven't been or can't be solved? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I still see quite a few unaddressed issues, but Burklemore1 seems to have expressed that he will be back. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I forgot to notify FunkMonk that I would be away for awhile from early July 'til now-ish, but now that I am back I can finally focus on this. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk, mind having a look? I've attempted to address the remaining issues. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nice fixes, so will pass it now! FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And I thank you for the excellent review (and for also being patient). Sorry for taking so long. :P Burklemore1 (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)