Talk:Myrmecia regularis/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Done. Done. Rewritten. Seems the HNS got this incorrect and turns out it was simply placed in the M. gulosa species group. I've done some edits and explained what they based this on. Refer above. Removed "apical margin" and added link for "pilosity". Removed, it was too complicated for my liking. Both sentences are referred in Clark 1951. Added a tag. Tried to do some corrections. The mandibles of M. regularis. Clarified in parenthesis. Added a bit more info. Please double check. Linked, unless you want the article to explain it. Done. Not entirely sure, but members of the M. gulosa species group are commonly known as "Giant bull ants". Not sure if it would be OR to include this, but I cannot be so sure on that either (I'll assume it is).
 * "This new species was based on two syntype workers he collected" I'm not quite clear on what is being claimed, here.
 * "This taxon was short lived when Australian entomologist John S. Clark synonymised" How about "This name was initially short-lived, with Australian entomologist John S. Clark synonymising..."
 * "Despite Clark disagreeing with Wheeler's views, he still viewed M. regularis as a valid species until the type specimen of M. lucida was properly examined." I don't follow- you've just said that Clark held that M. regularis and M. lucida were synonymous?
 * "In 1991, a published journal reviewing the species groups" Journal article. How about "In 1991, entomologist Kazuo Ogata assigned...". Also, it would be useful to explain what Ogata based this upon.
 * "However, entomologists placed" Again- who? Based on what?
 * "apical margins" and "pilosity" are jargon
 * "The node is as long as its total width, which is bluntly rounded in front" - "Node" is jargon, and I'm unclear on what is meant by the second half of the sentence
 * What's your reference for the final two lines of the second paragraph of the description section?
 * "Like the queen, the head of a worker" I assume you mean to compare the queen and worker, not, as is currently written, the queen and the head of the worker. Similar with "unlike the queen, the mesonotum is longer than it is broad".
 * "The mandibles are much narrower" The mandibles of the latter or the former?
 * What does "incipient" mean? Your discussion of the nests is a little jargon-y.
 * Do you mean people developed an allergy? Or did they display one? I think you need a bit more context to explain what the study was doing and what it showed.
 * What are "alates"?
 * "only lay eggs by October to November" Do you mean "only lay eggs from October to November" or perhaps "only lay eggs in October and ["or"?] November"?
 * No common names recorded?

The references all look appropriate and well formatted. The images are great. A really nice little article- some clarification and/or expansion is required in a few places, but, at first look-through, this seems very close. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for initiating the review and comments! Since I have a lot of free time today and don't have much to do on Wikipedia itself I'll probably just focus on this review for today. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Josh Milburn, could you quickly check the article and see if I may have not fully addressed your comments? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

One remaining issue: Naturally, I don't mind about the "males are too damaged" thing if that reflects the sources, but are there really no more up-to-date guidebooks than the 1951 one? If so, perhaps they would have descriptions of the males? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't found anything in particular. There are indeed some books that help people identify Myrmecia species, but these only discuss workers. Other than that, the 1991 revisions also don't go in depth with the males and only distinguish each species into groups based on, yet again, workers. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not quite ready to promote- There seems to be some inconsistent claims about the queens' wings/flight; could you take a close look at this please? Also, you jump between metric and imperial measurements, which is a little jarring. Metric would surely be preferable? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did some tweaks and corrections, can you double check again? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Josh Milburn, I forgot to send you a notification that I left a comment several days ago, my apologies. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok- looking through the article again, I'm happy that it's basically there. As such, I'm happy to promote at this time. Keep up the good work! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for initiating the review and kind comments! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)