Talk:Avitomyrmex/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 08:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I propose to review this article and will make a detailed study shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

First reading
Clarified. Also, what could be further explained in your perspective? Possibly, but Urbani isn't specific with this case. Done. Done. Done. Clarified. Done (mentioned it at the start of the second sentence). I have written it as "possibly being an arboreal nesting genus". My justification is due to the authors hypothesizing the possible described species living in trees. Reworded. Done. Done. Added info.
 * "... allows a proper examination of the apomorphy of the subfamilial or familial characters." - Although you wikilink "apomorphy", this is a concept that many readers will be unfamiliar with, and I think you should explain Urbani's view more fully.
 * "... undoubtedly a hymenopteran insect." - Could be a sawfly, bee or wasp then?
 * It would be better to use (and wikilink) the word "petiole" where you use waist.
 * You could wikilink "peduncle" and "extant".
 * Your conversions are too precise in places. Most would be better with one digit after the decimal point.
 * "while the hindwings are too poorly preserved." - Too poorly preserved for what?
 * I take it that the A. elongatus is of a reproductive rather than a worker. You could mention this near the beginning of the paragraph.
 * "... being an arboreal nesting genus." - How do you know this?
 * "... most likely used their large eyes to capture prey" - locate prey, perhaps?
 * I usually leave looking at the lead to the end. In this case it contains some information that should also be included in the body of the text. For example, that the genus is extinct.
 * "... instead generally regarded as incertae sedis within Myrmeciinae." - Insert "being" into this sentence.
 * I think the article would be improved by a statement, perhaps at the beginning of the Taxonomy section, that this is an extinct genus of ants with three described species.
 * Comment - Altogether, a nice article. If there really is doubt that the insect is an ant, the idea of defining it down to species level seems surprising. Similarly distinguishing between the species must be problematic with the very limited material at their disposal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The background of the taxonomic history even before Avitomyrmex was described was interesting and perhaps "controversial" among the scientific community. We have to take Baroni Urbani's view into consideration because his studies are in some ways flawed. Infact, there were tensions among Nothomyrmecia and Prionomyrmex awhile ago. I cannot explain it well, but someone such as Kevmin has a better understanding with what happened and why scientists do not accept his classifications. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * B-U is a bit of a fringe hymenopteran researcher (to the point of making up words such as orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy), and I am hesitant to add much if any of his work into the article unless balanced by the fact that the rest of the paleoentomology community have never adopted his classifications. I feel that the placement of the the genus into Myrmeciinae by Antweb, which is curated by ant researcher Barry Bolton give the placement enough weight. In regards to the species level distinctions, its actually very common to have species descriptions from single fossil wings, having partial adults gives more characters to key from.-- Kev  min  § 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I only added the content so the article is balanced with neutrality for GA, as long as I mention his classifications are rejected by the scientific community. I hope I have managed to do that correctly. Anyway, Kevmin has pretty much explained the situation with Baroni Urbani. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with the changes made to the article, and the explanations on the taxonomy of the group (thanks for your input, Kevmin). I consider that the article meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As always, thank you for reviewing the article. I went along and added the GA icon in the article (not sure what is going on with legobot). Burklemore1 (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)