Talk:Brownimecia/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on Josh. I look forward to your comments! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can I ask why you've chosen to have this article at the genus level? Would it not be more natural to have it at the subfamily level, given the importance of subfamilies in ant taxonomy? Or is there something somewhere in the MOS about this?
 * Fossil taxa are placed at either the genus level or the next level up, per the editors choice from my experience. I chose Genus as the article is mostly based on the generic description, and if a new genus is placed into the subfamily in the future, then forking the subfamily from the genus is easier.-- Kev  min  § 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed sentence. Upon reading it again, I realised the sentence may not be discussing Brownimecia specifically. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "and predation among these ants and other Late Cretaceous ones would have been low" What do you mean?
 * "Brownimecia is known from three adult fossils, the holotype, specimen number AMNH NJ-667, collected by Yale Goldman, the paratype and a third described in 2005." This is ambiguous. Semi-colons would help to make clear the dividing lines between your three specimens
 * Adjusted the sentence slightly and added a semicolon-- Kev min  § 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What are "genal spurs"?
 * elaborated and linked-- Kev min  § 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Linked "crown group", though I'm not sure if/how you want me to elaborate on this manner.
 * "stem group ants such as the sphecomyrmines" Jargon
 * "crown group genus" ??
 * "the informal "poneroid" grouping" Along with what?
 * "apical flagellomere" Jargon
 * Antennae and flagellomere linked.-- Kev min  § 15:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "covering of fine microtrichea on the" Given that that's a redlink, perhaps you could provide an in-text description?
 * linked to seta and added hairs after microtrichia-- Kev min  § 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Source doesn't really go in depth, so I cannot answer this question. Also removed the predation part (discussed above). Burklemore1 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Any indication of what they fed on? And I don't understand "predation among the Late Cretaceous ants would have been low due to the absence of large and diverse ant families" in the prose, either

I've made some fixes- please do double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have gone through all of your changes to the article, and they appear to be fine. Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. Promoting now. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you for reviewing this article! I would also like to thank Kevmin for his assistance, it was greatly appreciated. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)