Talk:Iridomyrmex/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77
Done.
 * Change the name of the Relationship with other organisms section to Symbiosis

General comments
Done. Not entirely sure if I should or not (kind of mixed between it), so I'll ping a trustworthy editor who knows what to do. I'm aware it's optional, but it's better to see what other people think.
 * In the lead, change "...or the rainbow ants...is a genus of ants" to "...or the rainbow ant...is a genus of ant"
 * In the Species section, change all the "Iridomyrmex" to "I...."; for example, change "Iridomyrmex adstringatus" to "I. adstringatus" (optional)
 * Pinged!
 * I'm the editor responsible for adding most species list to ant articles. This was some two years ago, and at the time most lists were already using the long format -- some of the abbreviated lists were changed by me, some by other editors. I prefer full names in lists, but I do not mind using the short form if the community thinks that's better. Either way, lists should be consistent in articles, and the long (actually "non-short") format is the default style. It's easy to change the format in this article -- I'll do it myself if you consider that a requirement for GA -- but making a decision that covers all (ant) species lists would make future editing easier. On a side note, I'd love to hear what other editors think about this issue, because I plan on writing a bot that could update all lists with the most recent data from AntCat. jonkerz ♠talk 10:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is optional, I believe the reviewer doesn't really mind how we lay this out, but more of a suggestion. We'll just have to see what he reckons first though. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to do it to pass GA Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  17:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Linked.
 * In the Description section, remove "The central projection is either weakly developed or well developed"
 * In the Life cycle and reproduction section, wikilink "Oligogynous"

Appears I have addressed all of your issues, including the refs (something is screwing up the coding in the reviews reference section which is why I'm writing here). I have pinged an editor in regards to the species section. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Final comment
Done.
 * Is this written in Australian English? If so, place the template to the article's talk page

It'll pass
 * Thank you for reviewing! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)