![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Species description sections
@Burklemore1: How much of the Species description sections are redundant to each other? The majority of the description, from what I see should be consolidated into a single section for the genus as a whole, and the specific characters that separate the two species should then be covered in the species headers. Also we should be looking to avoid being overaly technical. This is a general encyclopedia after all and not antwiki. ;) --Kevmin § 13:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Zigrasimecia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)
Tracking species
As of 2023 we are up to 9 species, so the article could do with a long needed overhaul
--Kevmin § 17:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Kevmin § 17:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c d e Chaul, J. C. M. (2023). "A revision of the Cretaceous ant genus Zigrasimecia Barden & Grimaldi, 2013 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: †Zigrasimeciinae)". Zootaxa. 5325 (3): 301–341. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.5325.3.1.
- ^ Zhuang, Yuhui; Ran, Hao; Li, Xiaoqin; Feng, Chen; Liu, Yu (2022). "A new species of the iron maiden ant based on an alate female from mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: †Zigrasimecia)". Cretaceous Research. 130: 105056. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2021.105056. S2CID 240812443.
You must be logged in to post a comment.