Talk:Archimyrmex/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I propose to undertake this review and will read through the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers for taking this on! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

First reading
The article looks good, and the prose is of a higher quality than other articles of yours that I have previously reviewed.
 * Thank you, I'm pretty wonky on how to write an article in an encyclopedic tone. Overall I'm pretty good with my writing skills, so I hope my previous articles haven't left any impressions. Also, do you know what is going on with legobot?
 * Legobot seems a bit erratic. I got a notification of a successful GA about 2 weeks after it passed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar case, it posted two successful GA articles recently on my talk page, but they passed awhile ago. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a number of words that could be wikilinked or explained: alitrunk, scape, mandible, denticle, scutum, podeum, gaster, antennomere, propodeum, petiole, node, mesosoma, counterpart and probably others.
 * Doing... I will do this as soon as I wake up.
 * Alitrunk seems to be the same thing as mesosoma, so I have made it consistent. I have wikilined and explained some technical terms, but it seems some of the terms recommended have already been linked, so readers can easily know what the article is talking about. I have checked around and could not see anymore things that should be linked or explained.
 * That's OK. I made the list when I was just about to stop editing, and did not have time to check whether the words were explained elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm confident that the source is mentioning Wilmatte Porter Cockerell, who was a botanist and entomologist well known for all the fauna she has discovered and collected. Removed. Removed. Added info. Done. Chopped it down. Did a small rewrite. Added in.
 * "Mrs Cockerell" - It looks a bit odd making this bald statement without a preamble. She was presumable related to Theodore Dru Alison Cockerell, was she also a zoologist or paleontologist?
 * "They placed the species into a new genus, "Ameghinoia" as "Ameghinoia" piatnitzkyi. - I don't think you need the inverted commas in the species name.
 * ""P." smekali." - ditto.
 * "The specific epithet was chosen by Dlussky." - This seems a curious statement. Who was Wedmann or why was the name chosen? Might it not be better to say that the ant was first described by Dlussky.
 * "Baroni Urbani justifies his decision by stating the characters of the ant are clearly noticeable in the genus Cariridris." - Do you mean that the characters are "similar to" those of Cariridris?
 * "Unlike the other species, the petiole of A. piatnitzkyi has a notable and distinct node separated further from A. smekali by the lack of a post-petiole constriction and the abdomen is oval shaped." - this sentence is rather convoluted.
 * "A. wedmannae from Germany is described from a single gyne that is approximately 23 mm (0.91 in), found in the Messel pit 47 million years ago." - I doubt it was found 47 million years ago!
 * "The propodeum has small denticles and weakly convex, and the legs are long." - Missing an "is"?
 * That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your final comment, so can you do some double checks on my edits? Thank you, Burklemore1 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose, grammar, structure and layout.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable.
 * The single image is relevant, has a suitable caption, and is properly licensed.

As always, thank you for initiating the review! Burklemore1 (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Final assessment - I am happy with the improvements made to the article during the review and believe the article meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)