Talk:Ochetellus glaber

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review, but I may give it in dribs and drabs. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for offering a review, I shall respond to your concerns in a few moments time. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "lives in open or savannah woodland areas" Jargon- could we introduce some wikilinks?

Savanna, which is already been linked, is the only wikilink I can manage to find, unless we can provide a brief description on what this type of ecosystem is for unfamiliar readers.

• "O. glaber has two synonyms" Surely there are more than two; you mention multiple synonyms in the previous paragraph? This whole paragraph is a little tricky.
• When you are listing a subspecies, is it not standard to abbreviate the specific name as well as the generic name? I.e, O. g. clarithorax rather than O. glaber clarithorax? Also, surely you should mention the nominate subspecies (O. glaber glaber)- or is that not how things work in entomology?
• Relatedly: "O. glaber clarithorax differentiates from O. glaber by the appearance of its thorax and parts of the legs, in which they are of a reddish-yellow colour." This sentence needs work; the last part is weird, and I don't think you mean "differentiates" (you mean "can be differentiated" or "differs"). Surely O. glaber. clarithorax doesn't differ from O. glaber; it is O. glaber. It differs from O. glaber glaber. (Compare: Texas doesn't differ from the US, it differs from New York.)
• I wonder if there is an oddity in listing the traits of the subspecies (and how they differ from the nominate subspecies) in the taxonomy section, which comes before the description?
• I fear that the description of O. glaber consimilis is too technical, which also raises paraphrasing concerns (though I'm yet to check the source).
• "Compared to O. glaber, O. glaber sommeri is" Again.
• I think your inch measurements have a degree of false precision; consider using the "sigfig" parameter of {{convert}}?

Ok, off now. I warned it'd be stop-start! Please check my copyedits so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some (undefined?) jargon in the description section: "scapes", "[antenna] head", "facet", "apical tooth"
• "has distinct metanotal grooves, but they never have a deep and broad concavity; these areas also lack erect hairs" A bit technical?
• "projecting protrusion" Is "projecting" redundant?
• "causes a declivity to be strongly concave" ??
• "The colour of these ants ranges from brown to black" Why "The colour of"? Similar with "The length of the young larva", "The length of the body hair" and "the colour of the larvae"

It does definitely stretch out the sentence with unnecessary wording. I shall commence fixes.

• "0.002–0.015 mm (7.9×10−5–0.000591 in)" Surely this should be in um? I'm not sure I see the utility of inch lengths; a thou is a thousandth of an inch, but it's hardly something a lot of people use, in my experience.
• "Body hair is present and is numerous and distributed" Unclear
• "Unlike other species" Vague.

Fixed.

More:

• "O. glaber is often called an arboreal nesting species." Why are you hedging the statement like this?

Done.

• "The ant is uniformly active day and night. Activity increases during the night or on overcast days, peaking during early mornings and late evening to early night. Nocturnal activity varies but is either minimal or non-existent." Hardly uniformly active day and night, then?

Done.

• "O. glaber has once been recorded around the carcases of dead birds, sea turtles and a parrot fish.[34] It prefers fat, grease, plants and seeds, as well as fruit fly pupae and diamondback moth larvae." This needs attention
• "No predators of O. glaber are known" Really? It's not eaten by birds or amphibians or other arthropods?
• "pestilent" Means "deadly"; I assume that's not what you mean?

Changed.

• "Therefore, the high-risk team and dog team of the California Department of Food and Agriculture have intercepted the ant in nursery stock and fresh plants from Hawaii, and a border station found and stopped it on beehives from Florida. California is especially vulnerable to O. glaber infestation because the state's climate resembles that of those regions where the ant already lives. Nonetheless, O. glaber would not lower crop yields, increase farming costs, degrade water supplies, or likely disrupt Californian agricultural commodity markets." This is bizarrely specific and apparently unsourced.
• "In New Zealand, the ant is fortunately found only in urban gardens and some homes" Why "fortunately"? What does this have to do with anything?

Removed word.

Ok, I'm yet to look at the sources/images, but I'm concerned right now about some unclear passages (in some cases because they're highly technical) and the possibility of close paraphrasing of sources. I do feel that everything is there; it's just a matter of getting it in the right order. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Images look OK, but your spelling of "Arthropodium cirrhatum" doesn't match the one in our article on the plant; could you look into this? Also, this is surely a flower of the species.
• Sources look solid, but I repeat my concern about close paraphrasing.
• Should China be mentioned in the lead?

Please excuse my unusually long absence, just haven't had the time to contribute to Wikipedia lately. I'll be free tomorrow though. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course. I'm in the same boat, so I may take a while to get back to you. All's well that ends well! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I shall get onto this. Work has been killing me. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok; where are we with this? What do we think is the best path forward? Josh Milburn (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok; I think this has probably been open long enough. Problems remain, so I'm going to go ahead and close the review at this time. I do encourage you to renominate after some further work has been done; some tweaking at the edges and this will make a fine candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ochetellus glaber/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 05:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Might as well take on this review, since this is the oldest species article nominated. From a quick glance the article looks good, although I do hate it when images cause section headers to shift, but I'm not sure if that's even a significant point to raise. Points will come soon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Skipping to taxonomy because I like doing the lead last, there are a few odd quirks I think merrit mention. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• "short lived" and "short-lived" are odd ways to describe a taxonomic placement, rewording might fix this
• I don't know the significance of Verhandlungen der Zoologisch, link if possible, or otherwise mention why it is important
• If it may be split, perhaps mention how it would be if there is literature on that
• "I. itoi was described as a separate species, while I. itoi abbotti was recognised as a subspecies" this wording is odd, perhaps something similar to "I. itoi was described as a separate species, which includes the later-named I. itoi abbotti as a subspecies" (assuming the subspecies was named later)
• "and in the 1950s I. itoi was first noted to be similar to O. glaber" maybe move this statement to the beginning of the next sentence
• "It is commonly known as" perhaps mention the full name here just for simplicities sake
• You should know I love phylogenies, but there is no mention of any relatives anywhere in the article I can find. Cladograms can be requested here if you find any.

Commencing work today. Sorry for keeping this late. Burklemore1 (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Burklemore1 and IJReid: Hello! What is the status of this review? Doesn't look like any progress has been made in over a month.--Dom497 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I lost this one because of lack of action. I will close it unless something happens within the span of a week (5 days). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing review now. No progress IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)