Talk:Termite/GA1

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

Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I will be doing the review on this article. The article is quite long, so expect over a week for me to finish making my comments, which will be added a few at a time. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on, Stigmatella aurantiaca. I understand that this article will take awhile to review, owing to its size. I guess reviewing level 4 vital articles that attract over 300,000 viewers a year isn't easy either, so please take as much time as you want to review section by section. Also, I should note that some issues have been raised on my talk page in regards to this article, so please feel free to check them out as well. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Automated checks
Termite appears to be copied from A Department Of Energy page on "Termite Power". I will be placing the GA review on hold until this oversight can be addressed. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I recall this section being added a very long time ago, so I'll get around to this immediately.
 * I have rewritten the section. I have checked the Earwig's Copyvio Detector and there is now a 0.0% chance of a violation. See here.
 * OK, will remove maintenance tag in a few seconds. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, I look forward to your comments! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Mixed British and American English. The earliest non-stub version of this article used British English, which should be the default and should be indicated as such with the appropriate template. The following is a list of American spellings which should be converted: Done. Done. Done. Done. Done.
 * "colored": Taxobox (two instances)
 * "labor": Lede (paragraph 2), Caste system (paragraph 1)
 * "fecal": Taxonomy and phylogeny (paragraph 4), Diet (figure caption), Communication (paragraph 1), Nests (paragraph 2)
 * "feces": Lede (paragraph 4), Diet (paragraph 1), Defence(paragraph 1), Nests (paragraph 2), Shelter tubes
 * "odor": Communication (paragraph 2, two instances)
 * In Mounds, "diametre" is a misspelling. Just because Brits spell "center" "centre", "meter" "metre", and "theater" "theatre" doesn't mean that they do the same with "diameter". See this discussion.
 * Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm, didn't know that. Done.


 * I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but in that non-stub article I didn't notice any words that would be spelled differently in US and UK english. Weebro55 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I should note that there has been a maintenance tag added by a bot from 2010, so we should still follow this with consistency.
 * "...exposed timber can be made resistant to attack by impregnating it with creosote or other chemicals, but the most effective defence is a masonry foundation."
 * "In some regions, notably arid tropical savannahs, termites construct extremely large and elabourate mounds to house their colonies."
 * Copy and paste the document into your word processor. To discover American spellings, set the proofing language to English (U.K.). To discover British spellings, set the proofing language to English (U.S.). That's much easier than trying to scan the document by eye. I think that there is probably some Wiki tool underlying the Peer review tool that we can access to discover how it determines the presence of mixed Englishes, but that gets into monobook.js installation hassles and is probably not as complete or accurate as using your word processor.
 * The Peer review tool is pretty picky, by the way. I'm not going to demand a clean slate from that tool for the simple reason that I disagree with a lot of what it has to say, MOS or no MOS. I may be mistaken, but it also doesn't seem to distinguish between main text and references when checking language usage.
 * Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede
Done. Done. Removed. Done.
 * "Termites were once in a separate order from cockroaches..." Slightly ambiguous wording, allowing a humorous misreading. Surely termites did not retroactively change their ancestry. Rather, humans modified their classification of termites. Try "Termites were once classified in a separate order from cockroaches..."
 * "Termites were once in a separate order from cockroaches, but recent phylogenetic studies indicate that they evolved from close ancestors of cockroaches during the Jurassic or Triassic, but it is possible the first termites emerged during the Permian or even the Carboniferous." Run-on sentence. Split after the word "Triassic".
 * "Like ants, and some bees and wasps" Superfluous comma.
 * "Each individual termite goes through an incomplete metamorphosis, which, unlike ants, proceeds through egg, nymph and adult stages." Excess comma after "metamorphosis" and slightly unclear sentence. Try "goes through an incomplete metamorphosis which, unlike the complete metamorphosis found in ants, proceeds through..."

Etymology
Done.
 * "The name termite derives from Latin and Late Latin, from the word termes..." Remove excess comma.

Taxonomy and phylogeny
Done. Done.
 * "Most recently, this has led some authors to propose that termites be reclassified as a single family..." Unnecessary leading phrase and unclear pronoun antecedent. Does "this" refer to the hypothesis or the evidence? Try "These similarities have led some authors to propose that termites be reclassified as a single family..."
 * "However, some researchers advocate the less drastic measure of retaining the termites as Termitoidae..." Somewhat non-encyclopedic language. Try "Other researchers advocate the more conservative measure of retaining the termites as Termitoidae..."
 * "Other sources point to different time periods for the emergence of termites." Somewhat vague. A clearer foreshadowing of the text to come would be preferable.
 * Begin a new paragraph, and try "Claims for an earlier time period for the emergence of termites stand on controversial footing," or some other such wording.

Your suggestion is good enough, so I have used it.
 * "The folded wings of this fossil, called Pycnoblattina..." What fossil? Unclear pronoun antecedent. Try "The folded wings of the fossil wood roach Pycnoblattina..."

Done.
 * "All of the Paleozoic and Triassic insects formerly believed to be termites have been determined to be unrelated to termites and are excluded from the Isoptera." You need to make it clear that Krishna et al. stand directly opposed to Weesner (1960), Tilyard (1937), and Henry (2013). Try "On the other hand, Krishna et al. consider that all of the Paleozoic and Triassic insects tentatively classified as termites are in fact unrelated to termites and should be excluded from the Isoptera."

Done. Done. Done. Done. By the way, I have done some additional edits to the first paragraph of this section, just so any potential errors are left forgotten.
 * "It has long been accepted that termites are closely related to cockroaches and mantids, and they are classified in the same superorder (Dictyoptera), but new research has shed light on termite evolution.[20][21] There is now strong evidence suggesting that termites are really highly specialised wood-eating cockroaches.[22]" Eliminate cliched phrase "shed light". Try "It has long been accepted that termites are closely related to cockroaches and mantids, and they are classified in the same superorder (Dictyoptera).[20][21] There is strong evidence suggesting that termites are highly specialised wood-eating cockroaches.[22]"
 * "A study conducted by scientists has found that, out of all cockroaches, one genus of cockroach, Cryptocercus, shares the strongest phylogenetical similarity with termites; Cryptocercus is considered to be a sister-group to termites.[23][24]" Verbose. Try "The cockroach genus Cryptocercus shares the strongest phylogenetical similarity with termites and is considered to be a sister-group to termites.[23][24]"
 * "The oldest termite nest discovered is believed to be from the Upper Cretaceous in west Texas, and the oldest known faecal pellets were also discovered." Unclear. I assume that you mean "The oldest termite nest discovered is believed to be from the Upper Cretaceous in west Texas, where the oldest known faecal pellets were also discovered." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Krishna et al. (2013) is cited as the source of the abbreviated classification scheme that you present. Comparing the SUMMARY CLASSIFICATION OF ISOPTERA beginning on page 183 with the classification presented in the article, I see some significant differences. The abbreviated classification scheme that you present divides Isoptera into three clades, Euisoptera, Neoisoptera, and Icoisoptera, the first two described by Engel, Grimaldi, and Krishna (2009) which was the primary source for the scheme presented in Krishna et al. (2013), while Icoisoptera derives from Engel (2013).
 * Krishna et al. (2013) do not place Mastotermitidae under Euisoptera
 * Krishna et al. (2013) place Kalotermitidae directly within Euisoptera
 * None of the references in your abbreviated classification are complete. I especially wanted to follow up on Engel (2013) but couldn't.
 * Basically, since the clade Icoisoptera represents (Kalotermitidae + Neoisoptera), its relative placement in the classification scheme that you present is confusing to me. Clade Icoisoptera would seem to be represented by the three lineages to the top right of the figure "Evolutionary Relationships of Blattodea".


 * I see two courses of action that you may take:
 * Either follow Krishna et al. (2013) exactly down to the subfamily level, without rearrangement, in which case you may omit the frustratingly incomplete references, or
 * Present your revised version of the classification scheme from Krishna et al. (2013), but if you do so, you must provide complete references.
 * I do not like the second option because it smacks of WP:OR
 * Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Order Blattaria
 * Infraorder Isoptera
 * Family Cratomastotermitidae
 * Family Mastotermitidae
 * Parvorder Euisoptera
 * Family Termopsidae
 * Family Archotermopsidae
 * Family Hodotermitidae
 * Family Stolotermitidae
 * Stolotermitinae
 * Porotermitinae
 * Family Kalotermitidae
 * Nanorder Neoisoptera
 * Family Archeorhinotermitidae
 * Family Stylotermitidae


 * Family Rhinotermitidae
 * Coptotermitinae
 * Heterotermitinae
 * Prorhinoterminae
 * Psammotermitinae
 * Rhinotermitinae
 * Termitogetoninae
 * Family Serritermitidae
 * Family Termitidae
 * Sphaerotermitinae
 * Macrotermitinae
 * Foraminitermitinae
 * Apicotermitinae
 * Syntermitinae
 * Nasutitermitinae
 * Cubitermitinae
 * Termitinae


 * Hm... With the list you provided, is that the one we should use to make that part accurate and correct? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Only a suggestion, to let you see how it would look without the clutter of incomplete references. You need to double-check for accuracy. I just removed an "extinct" tag from Termopsidae when I followed the link to the Wikipedia article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew I should have looked at this twice. Crap, it was actually here before I started to work on the article, so I should have verified it. Is the content provided *from* page 183 to be exact? If so, we should use that. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I omitted extinct families of uncertain classification that were given Latin designations such as "Family incertae sedis" and "Nomina dubia" meaning, basically, that nobody knew exactly what to do with them. Maybe the fossils were too fragmentary to properly assess, etc.
 * So far as "exact" goes, I originally had the "extinct" tag next to Termopsidae because of the cross next to the entry in Krishna et al. But I removed it when the Wikipedia link spoke of extant genera. So no, it doesn't have to be slavishly exact.
 * Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just viewed the content on page 183 and on, so pretty much what you have provided above is correct and we should use it. I'll modify the reference as a journal too and add a download link in the url. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated classification based on your recommendations.

Distribution and diversity
Done. Done. Moved to "diet". It's a result of the breakdown of cellulose.
 * "where mounds are frequently seen in certain regions." Try "extremely abundant" or other such wording.
 * "These species are restricted to specific habitats" Try ""These species are each restricted"
 * "Termites are also considered to be a major source (11%) of atmospheric methane, one of the prime greenhouse gases.[35]" Seems that this sentence more properly belongs somewhere in Behaviour and ecology or Relationship with humans, although it not obvious to me exactly where it fits.

Description
Ah, so I guess I worded this incorrectly. Fixed, I think.
 * "Lateral ocelli, however, are not found in all termites." A discussion of the "unfortunately labelled 'lateral ocelli'" (which are actually dorsal ocelli) may be found here.
 * I dunno, because use of the misleading (and apparently technically incorrect?) term "lateral ocelli" appears to be standard. For example, see Weesner (1969) p. 22 and Roonwall and Chhotani (1965) p. 101. Cockroaches certainly have dorsal ocelli as seen in this reference, which clearly distinguishes between the dorsal ocelli of adults and the lateral ocelli of larvae, and here (p 496 ¶ 2) but other references refer to the lateral ocelli of cockroaches.  Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, this one has me think but I'm not sure what to do with it. My edits probably just added some inaccuracy, but apparently it's incorrect. It does clearly say lateral ocelli in Page 7, so do you have any suggestion in mind?
 * It is not clear to me to what extent the disparaging remark "unfortunately labelled 'lateral ocelli'" in Simple_eye_in_invertebrates may represent WP:OR. The references in that article are inadequate. After thinking it over, I recommend not Wikilinking to that article, but to instead to rely on the usage in the reliable secondary source that you cited.
 * Delinked and reverted back to lateral ocelli based on what the source presents.

Done. Done. Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk)
 * "This includes a scape, one of the three basic segments on the insect antennae, a pedicel, the second segment, which is typically shorter than the scape, and finally the flagellum, which refers to all the segments beyond the scape and pedicel." The elements of the comma-delimited list are intermingled with appositive phrases, also delimited by commas. This is rather confusing. Try using parenthetical phrases instead. "This includes a scape (one of the three basic segments on the insect antennae), a pedicel (the second segment, which is typically shorter than the scape), and finally the flagellum (all segments beyond the scape and pedicel)."
 * "which is present in species that climb on smooth surfaces but absent in most termites." Broken parallel structure. Try "but is absent"
 * "When a termite is in flight, the wings remain at a right angle, and when at rest, remain parallel to the body." Try "When a termite is in flight, its wings remain at a right angle, and when the termite is at rest, its wings remain parallel to the body."

Caste system
Done. Done. Yeah, sometimes I have problems with passive voice. Done. Done. Fixed. Done.
 * "trophallaxis" Add wikilink "trophallaxis"
 * "components that are nitrogenous" Try "nitrogenous components"
 * "a soldier's globular (phragmotic) head can be used to block their narrow tunnels." This is taking passive voice to an extreme. Try "soldiers may use their globular (phragmotic) heads to block their narrow tunnels."
 * "These unique soldiers have the ability to biosynthesize diterpenes,[54] and nitrogen fixation plays an important role in nutrition for nasutes.[55]" Try "These unique soldiers are able to spray noxious, sticky secretions containing diterpenes at their enemies.[54] Nitrogen fixation plays an important role in nasute nutrition.[55]" or some other such wording.
 * "In order for mass egg-laying production..." Ungrammatical. Fix.
 * "These swarms also attract a wide variety of predators." Remove word "also"

Life cycle
Done. Added some examples. Removed unnecessary wording (are said to) and added a new secondary source to the claim.
 * "but, unlike bees or ants" Eliminate superfluous comma
 * "workers also take part in the social life of the colony and have certain other tasks to accomplish." Vague. What other tasks?
 * "Pheromones are said to regulate the caste system in termite colonies, preventing all but a very few of the termites from becoming fertile queens." This is the sort of guarded wording (see WP:ALLEGED) that one might use if all one had to go on were a limited number of primary sources like Matsuura et al. (2010) so as to avoid WP:OR, but the validity of Matsuura et al.'s observations have been attested to by multiple secondary reviews such as this or this Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Reproduction

 * "Termites going through incomplete metamorphosis on the path to becoming alates form a subcaste in certain species of termite, functioning as potential supplementary reproductives, but this usually develops upon the death of a king or queen, or when the primary reproductives (the king and queen) are separated from the colony." Please clarify what you mean by "this usually develops." Do you mean that
 * 1. Creation of the caste of potential supplementary reproductives only occurs upon the death/separation of a king or queen? (This doesn't make much sense.) Or do you mean
 * 2. Further development of these potential supplementary reproductives into mature reproductives only occurs upon the death/separation of a king or queen?
 * 3. Also note that the sentence is overly long and should be split.

Supplementary reproductives only take over when the queen or king dies (and thus they develop into mature reproductives), so option number two sounds more logical. I have also rewritten a few parts of the sentence and split it.

Diet
Done. Done. Done. Done. Clarified. Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Termites are also considered to be a major source..." Delete the word "also"
 * "to digest the cellulose for them, and absorb the end products for their own use." Try "to digest the cellulose for them, allowing them to absorb the end products for their own use."
 * "it is strongly presumed that the termites' and cockroaches gut microbiota" The word "cockroaches'" should also be in possessive form.
 * "Certain species such as Gnathamitermes tubiformans have seasonal food habits and often consume particular food sources in a given season. For example, the Red three-awn (Aristida longiseta) is frequently eaten during the summer, while Buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) is an important food source from May to August. Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis grass is an essential food source to their diet during spring, summer and autumn." First sentence is active voice but following sentences switch to passive and then back to active. Please maintain voice consistency. For example, "Certain species such as Gnathamitermes tubiformans have seasonal food habits. For example, they may preferentially consume Red three-awn (Aristida longiseta) during the summer, Buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) from May to August, and blue grama Bouteloua gracilis during spring, summer and autumn."
 * "Colonies rarely consume food during spring, but feeding activity in autumn is high." Please clarify. Feeding activity was lowest in the spring, but the sentence seems to imply that the termites actually starved. It also isn't clear that you are still discussing G. tubiformans.
 * "In one study, it was found that particular termite species prefer poplar and maple woods to other woods that were generally rejected by the termite colony." Begin a new paragraph. Even though the reference specifically studied Cryptotermes brevis as a primary source, the article's introductory literature review can be considered a secondary source enabling a much more general statement. For example: "Different woods have differing degrees of susceptibility to termite attack, the differences being attributed to such factors as moisture content, hardness, and resin and lignin content. In one study, the drywood termite Cryptotermes brevis strongly preferred poplar and maple woods to other woods that were generally rejected by the termite colony. These preferences may in part have represented conditioned or learned behaviour."

Predators
Mine seems to be working fine, so I can go through the reviews. I can only access McHenry and Coffing though, and it seems there is no information about termites. Also, is this review okay?
 * "the extinct primate Paranthropus robustus is said to have used a bone tool to catch termites 1–1.8 million years ago" A reliable secondary source would allow removal of WP:ALLEGED. McHenry and Coffing (2000) and Susman (1991) might potentially be such reviews, but at the moment, although I can log in to JSTOR, I get a "Page Loading Error" trying to load the articles on to my shelf. I doubt that the file server issue will get resolved over the weekend. Maybe you can check Monday?
 * The introductory literature review looks generally supportive of the hypothesis, and the primary research in the latter part of the article adds to the evidence. So you can use considerably stronger language, without, of course, pretending to absolute certainty. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try and reword the sentence and add the source in. Have you had any luck accessing the full text for any JSTOR article?
 * The full text of Susman is not available on JSTOR, so if I have a chance, I will try visiting the local university campus later today to use their computers. So far as wording goes, try something like "Wear pattern analysis of bone tools used by Paranthropus robustus suggests that they used these tools to dig into termite mounds" or some other such wording. Such precise wording is important because many readers will be familiar with Jane Goodalls's work on tool use in chimpanzees, and the image that comes to mind is that of using twigs as termite "fishing" tools. The primary and secondary sources that I've followed up on all use carefully guarded wording, so you should reflect the guarded wording of the sources. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have used your recommendation. This issue was quite challenging, but thanks for the assist! I'll keep this into consideration until we have managed to find the full text of Susman.
 * From our point of view, Sussman (1991) was disappointing. Basically, he established that the weight of evidence pointed to Paranthropus robustus being indeed a tool user. Article had nothing to do with termites. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's a shame. :/ We could have had a potential great source to use. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "and so the termites are regularly predated on by these ants" Try "preyed on"

Parasites, pathogens and viruses
I'll go through section by section.
 * No specific comment on this section, but a general comment on the article as a whole: you seem to have a great love of semicolons; sometimes the effect is that of a comma splice; sometimes a period would be better; use semicolons to connect related ideas, but don't use semicolons to to tie together ideas that have only a distant connection with each other; use them sparingly. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Made some edits, although I'm not sure if I got rid of all unnecessary semicolons.
 * Much improved, thanks!
 * By the way, in the absence of predation, disease, etc. how long do workers and soldiers live? Do G. tubiformans colonies consume less food during spring due to seasonal changes in colony size or what? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries! Unfortunately I cannot answer your question, because I do not have full access to the source and so I am unable to find such information. I could email a user I know of who has access to journals though.

Locomotion and foraging
Removed. Removed passive voice and reorganised ref. Done.
 * "Chemicals such as acetamiprid can impair the locomotion of termites.[122]" Seems to me that this information belongs to an entirely separate article on pest control.
 * "communication among individuals is facilitated through the use of semiochemicals, and[125] trail pheromones released from the sternal gland are laid down by workers who begin to forage outside of their nest." Passive voice surrounded by sentences using active voice. Also, reference [125] probably goes after the comma.
 * "Lévy flight behaviour may occur in isolated termite workers." Needs to be expanded slightly, since the wikilinked article doesn't get into biological implications until well after the typical reader may have stopped reading. How about "Isolated termite workers may engage in Lévy flight behaviour as an optimized stategy for finding their nestmates or foraging for food" or some other such rewording.

Competition
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Studies show that, when termites encounter each other" Superfluous comma
 * Done.

Communication
Moved. Removed.
 * "Some species, such as Hodotermes mossambicus, have compound eyes which they use for orientation and to distinguish sunlight from moonlight." How does this fit into a section on Communication? Perhaps this statement belongs somewhere in Description?
 * "Due to this last ability, termites can forage during the day and night." How does this follow as a logical continuation of the immediately preceding sentence? What does the ability to to distinguish sunlight from moonlight have to do with the ability to forage?

Defence
Did a rewrite, by clarifying it occurs in some species and removed some odd wording such as "walking bombs". Done. Done. Removed statement, in the end I found it unnecessary. I'm also not sure how useful this is for pest control and such. Done. Done. Removed. Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Done.
 * "These tunnel-blocking soldiers are regarded as walking bombs, as the soldiers who block the tunnels explode as an act of defence and to block the tunnel." This description of soldiers engaging in autothysis seems a bit on the hyperbolic side, not quite encyclopedic. Also, this behavior is not universal, as is evident from later on in this section.
 * "If an invasion carried out by Megaponera analis is successful, an entire colony may be destroyed although this scenario is rare." Add wikilink to Megaponera analis and a comma after "destroyed."
 * "to attract other soldiers for defence and recruit additional workers to repair any breach." Parallel structure: "and to recruit additional workers"
 * "This head-banging response to vibration is also useful when attempting to locate termites in house frames." Is useful to pest control personnel? Inspectors? Exterminators?
 * "Additionally, an alarmed termite will bump into other termites which cause them to be alarmed and leave pheromone trails" Number agreement and parallel structure. "Additionally, an alarmed termite will bump into other termites which causes them to be alarmed and to leave pheromone trails"
 * "A wide variety of monoterpene hydrocarbons as solvents" Try "A wide variety of monoterpene hydrocarbon solvents"
 * "The soldiers of the neotropical termite family Serritermitidae, have a defence strategy" Superfluous comma
 * "in which a nestmate will carry away a corpse from the colony and dispose of it elsewhere" Try "from the colony to dispose of it elsewhere"
 * "Instead, workers use other strategies to deal with their dead" Try "Alternatively, workers use other strategies"

Relationship with other organisms
It does not occur between two termite species. I have clarified. Rewritten by saying the termites are captured as a fresh food source. I was meant to say inquilinism between two termite species does not occur (I haven't heard of a termite queen and king entering another colony of a different species and form some sort of parasitic association). Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Done.
 * "This chemical mimicry allows the beetle to integrate itself within the termite colony." Wait a minute. In the section on Parasites, pathogens and viruses, one reads "Inquilinism does not occur in the termite world." This seems a direct contradiction of the previous statement.
 * "Some species of ant are known to enslave termites instead of killing them. Formica nigra captures termites, and those who try to escape are immediately seized, driving them underground.[159]" Dubious. Forbes (1878) did not present evidence that the captured larvae were "enslaved" rather than merely being rounded up as a source of fresh food. A longer excerpt may be read here, rather than the limited number of lines pointed to by the doi.
 * "Some species, including Nasutitermes corniger, form associations with certain ant species to keep away predatory ant species." Another example of inquilinism, unless I misunderstand the definition of the word.
 * " has been developed in Australia and uses a range of plant extracts to create a paint-on nontoxic termite barrier" Try "that uses a range of plant extracts"

Nests
Removed "transform". Also clarified sentence. Done. Good point, removed word. Done. Done. Done. Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nests only transform into mounds if the structure protrudes from the earth, and is made out of the soil." Please clarify. I'm a bit confused by the use of the word "transform." As I understand it, nests are variously classified as mound nests, arboreal nests, subterranean nests, and wood nests (with no ground contact). So it sound to me like the word "transform" is being used here as a term of definition: Would nests be called "mounds" if they contact the ground and use earth or mud in their construction???
 * "retaining a stable climate within the colony and against predators." Try "and providing defense against predators" or some other word like "shelter" or "protection."
 * "Most termites construct amorphous underground colonies" I do not believe that "amorphous" would be the right word. Termite nests have a lot of structure, with galleries, hallways, and tunnels.
 * "Termites primarily build their nests using faeces, which are good materials to use for construction.[174]" Try "which has many desirable properties as a construction material.[174]"
 * "Other building material includes partly digested plant material, which creates carton nests" Try "Other building materials employed include partly digested plant material, used in carton nests"
 * "and soil, which produces nests and mounds." Try "and soil, used in subterranean nest and mound construction."
 * "Species in the subfamily Apicotermitinae are good examples, as they only dwell inside amorphous tunnels.[174]" Try "are good examples of subterranean nest builders" Also watch out for the word "amorphous"
 * "Nests and mounds also provide a fortification against predators, due to their extreme vulnerability." Unclear pronoun antecedent. Does "their extreme vulnerability" mean that the nests and mounds are vulnerable? Are the predators vulnerable?
 * Clarified.

Mounds
Looking at the source, they erode because of torrential and continuous rainfall, which would probably weaken the surface (owing to the construction materials). I'm sure, it says so here. Unless you have a source that contests that statement?
 * "Mounds located in areas with high rainfall are at risk of mound erosion." Why? Because they are made largely of mud and soil?
 * "The nest is thicker around the east-west axis when compared to the north-west axis (three metres versus one metre)." This doesn't sound right. Are you sure that the nests aren't thicker along the north-south axis when compared with the east-west axis?
 * During the summer, the Sun shines directly overhead over the northern parts of Australia. The mental image that I get from the description at the Australian museum website is of wedge-shaped mounds oriented in an east-west (?) direction that, in the summer, presents a minimal profile to the Sun throughout the day, from morning to evening, while presenting a greater cross-sectional profile during the winter when the Sun is lower in the sky.
 * In contrast, the mental image that I get from all other sources, for example, this one, is of of wedge-shaped mounds oriented in a north-south direction that present a large surface area to the Sun in the morning for quick warm-up, a minimal profile at noon, and a large surface area in the evening, the net effect being to stabilize internal nest temperatures throughout the day in desert areas that exhibit extreme variations between hot daytime temperatures and chilly nights.
 * "The possible thermoregulatory significance of north-south orientation of "magnetic" termite nests was investigated. Measurements in the nest during three days in early winter showed that a temperature plateau developed between approximately 1000 and 1730 hr each day, at 33-35C. This contrasted with night time temperatures as low as 13-15°C. The nest was then sawn off at the base and rotated into an experimental east-west orientation. In this situation no plateau was detected and temperatures rose to daily maxima of 40-42°C. Apparently north-south orientation of the wedge-shaped mound affords rapid warming in the morning, avoids excessive heating by presenting a low profile to the midday sun, and maintains the warmth of the nest late into the day."
 * The simplest option of stabilizing nest temperatures, simply going underground, appears to be denied these termites because of occasional floods.
 * Regardless of the authority of the source, the wording of the description on its website seems unsuited to conveying the meaning that is intended. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I feel like this statement is going to be problematic and hold us back, so should we just scrap that info and use the text provided in the source you gave here instead?
 * Agree. The Australian Museum doesn't necessarily have full-time termite experts on their staff, and I rather suspect that the task of writing the text on that page may have been assigned to a junior docent who misread the source material. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will try and and carefully write the sentence, as I haven't fully familiarised myself with the material. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewritten, but I may have screwed up the meaning implied in the source. Can you double check? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "During winter, the mound can be kept warm when the sun is shining at a lower angle above the mound." How do they manage that? I know that a lot of research follows compass termites as they move about the interiors of their mounds during different parts of the day. Mound orientations are also not necessarily strictly north-south, but differ according to local environmental conditions. But the sentence as written seems to imply something else that I don't understand.
 * Removed.

Shelter tubes
Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "these shelter tubes can be found on walls and other structures." Sentence should start with a capital.
 * "Normally, shelter tubes are less than a foot in height, but some tubes can exceed six feet." My general impression of shelter tubes is that they are about the diameter of a pencil and up to 60 feet long. I find it very difficult to envision six foot tall shelter tubes.
 * Removed, since it would be quite difficult envisioning them. However, termites are the masters of construction, so in a way it wouldn't surprise me if I ever saw a gigantic shelter tube.

As pests
Removed.
 * "In April 2011, wood-eating termites were blamed for reportedly consuming more than $220,000 worth of Indian rupee notes." This is an amusing story, but does not really belong in an encyclopedia article.
 * "To better control the population of termites..." thru "Researchers hope to use this method of tracking termites to find a more cost-effective way of controlling the damaging pests." Wikipedia is not a science newsletter. The tone of this section is all, wow, this is latest and greatest research, but in actuality, the news is from 2010. Begin a new paragraph and try improving on the following, which is only provided to illustrate a more proper tone and is not intended to be the final form of a reworded section:
 * "To better control the population of termites, various research methods have been developed to track termite movements. One early method involved distributing termite bait laced with immunoglobulin G (IgG) marker proteins from rabbits or chickens. Termites collected from the field could be tested for the rabbit-IgG markers using a rabbit-IgG-specific assay. More recently developed, less expensive alternatives include tracking the termites using egg white, cow milk, or soy milk proteins, which can be sprayed on termites in the field.[190] Termites bearing these proteins can be traced using a protein-specific ELISA test."
 * Done, it's more simplified and less dragged on. Also saves some space in the article altogether and avoids the section being overly detailed. I recall this being the most problematic section of the article. Before I started working on it, the section was more like a "howto" guide. It also went into unnecessary detail about the chemicals used for pest removal.

As food
Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Added some more info.
 * "Termites are consumed in many regions globally, but this practice has only become popular in recent years" This statement seems contradicted by immediately following statements. Do you mean that termite consumption has only become popular in developed nations in recent years?
 * "Researchers have suggested that termites are suitable candidates for human consumption in space." Maybe push this statement to the end of the section. Early in the section, it seems a bit out of place. Please explain why they would be suitable (quality of protein, ease of production, other useful ecological roles). The main cited article is available online.

In agriculture and science
Done. Done. Done.
 * "where termite tunnels in the soil allow rainwater to soak in deeply and help reduce runoff and consequent soil erosion" Try "deeply, which helps reduce runoff and consequent soil erosion"
 * "cultivated plants such as eucalyptus, upland rice and sugarcane can be severely damaged by termite infestations, feeding on leaves, roots and woody tissue." Try "with attacks on leaves, roots and woody tissue."
 * "Researchers at Harvard University have developed autonomous robots..." Hmmm. Maybe re-title this section as "In agriculture" and the next section as "In science and technology" and move the autonomous robots stuff to the next section?

As an energy source
Done. Did some tweaks, but I'm not sure if I have completely fixed the issue.
 * As suggested above, this could be a "science and technology" section into which you can move the robots stuff.
 * Reads like a science digest newsletter, but the "news" is from 2006. See if you can alter the tone to be more encyclopedic.

In culture

 * No real comments. Given the nature of the material covered in this section, it is difficult to avoid the newsy tone. See what you can do to tone down the newsletter style, but I don't expect much.
 * Upon reading the section, I'm not sure what can exactly can be toned down. Do you have any specific sentences that may need to be rewritten slightly?
 * I'll try my hand at this when I go through the final re-read. Thanks for taking care of the icon on Fizeau experiment, by the way. Something seems to be wrong with legobot. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, you were definitely right when you said it would be difficult to avoid the particular tone we wish to avoid. And that's okay, legobot briefly worked again when it posted two notices about some of my GA nominees passing, but that's about it. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Figures

 * An excellent selection of figures, well integrated with the text. Usually I find something to gripe about (poorly worded captions, misplaced figures, figures that seem purely decorative, etc.) Good job!
 * Thank you, picking images for the article was surprisingly difficult, especially for a topic that is frequently photographed and studied.

Beginning re-read
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Over the next couple of days, I will be going over the entire article to catch things that I missed, making minor changes as necessary.
 * No worries, it seems the article is incredibly close to achieving GA status, which is great. It's especially satisfying because this article was so neglected over the years, could you imagine it looked like this at the beginning of this year? It was just a mess.

I've asked Corinne to do a final check before I promote. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, I like the new addition you have added to the article by the way, interesting stuff.


 * Stigmatella aurantiaca I've left a few questions for you on my talk page at User talk:Corinne (they're not all about that section). See everything after your last comment. Corinne (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add any additional comments here.


 * 1) In the fourth paragraph in the section Termite, we read:


 * The pantropical subfamily Nasutitermitinae has a specialised caste of soldiers, known as nasutes, that have the ability to exude noxious liquids through a horn-like nozzle frontal projection (nasus) that they use for defence.


 * In the phrase "a horn-like nozzle frontal projection", I wonder whether there aren't too many modifiers (descriptive words before the noun). I think "a horn-like frontal projection" would be sufficient; it conjures up an image of a nozzle. If you really want the word "nozzle", then perhaps supply it as a different way of saying it, something like this:


 * a horn-like frontal projection, or nozzle, (nasus) that they use for defence.


 * but think about perhaps omitting it altogether.
 * Retainted text, but removed "nozzle" and other words. In the end it seemed too cluttered to describe a single thing.


 * 2) The last sentence of the fifth paragraph in Termite is:


 * Soldiers outside and attacked by intruders engage in autothysis when they are inside the nest entrance, denying entry to any attacker.


 * This sentence is not clear. "Soldiers outside and attacked by intruders engage in autothysis when they are inside the...entrance"? When the soldiers are outside the nest and are attacked, do they move into the entrance? How far away were they? Or are the soldiers in the entrance to begin with? I think this needs to be a bit more precise.


 * I have watched documentaries about termites, and it shows that some soldiers patrol areas reasonably far away, and then you have groups closer to the colony and others guarding the holes. It all depends. Because the soldiers far away are probably killed by the time the invaders reach the nest, I think this is only exclusive to those guarding holes (where they blow themselves up, successfully blocking the tunnels). Did some minor editing, please double check.


 * 3) I'd like to draw your attention to these two sentences in the sixth paragraph in Termite:


 * To avoid pathogens, termites occasionally engage in necrophoresis, in which a nestmate will carry away a corpse from the colony to dispose of it elsewhere. Alternatively, workers use other strategies to deal with their dead, including burying, cannibalism, and avoiding the corpse altogether.


 * The way this is worded, the strategies listed in the second sentence sound like the least-used strategies, but upon re-reading the first sentence, I see that necrophresis is occasionally used, so that must mean the other strategies are (at least collectively) the more commonly used ones. It's a bit confusing. I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make more sense to put the second sentence first, omit "Alternatively", and make this a kind of topic (introductory) sentence for the paragraph:


 * Workers use several different strategies to deal with their dead, including burying, cannibalism, and avoiding a corpse altogether. To avoid pathogens, termites occasionally engage in necrophoresis, in which a nestmate will carry away a corpse from the colony to dispose of it elsewhere. Which strategy used depends on...


 * Used your suggestion. It makes a lot more sense and flows better.


 * 4) In the section Termite, at the end of the first paragraph we read about a beetle that successfully mimics chemicals, allowing it to live inside the termite nest. I wonder whether it wouldn't make sense to add a sentence that indicates what the beetle then does. Does it then prey upon termites inside the nest?


 * I haven't been able to find a source that goes in depth, and the one I provided has restricted access. I did add a new sentence of a different form of mimicry by beetles though.


 * Various species of Trichopsenius have been documented as being fed by termite workers, engaging in grooming activities with workers, and riding on the backs of queens. They don't prey on the termites, but they do take advantage of them. For example, a queen's body apparently makes a nice surface for a romp. I don't think such salacious details need to go into an encyclopedia article, however. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. I have been looking around to find such info, so I thought it just wasn't available.


 * 5) In the second paragraph of that section are the following two sentences:


 * Certain ants also conduct raids on termite colonies. Ants in the subfamily Ponerinae usually conduct these raids although other ants go in alone to steal the eggs or nymphs.


 * In the first sentence you say, "Certain ants...conduct raids..." In the second sentence you say, "Ants in the subfamily Ponerinae usually conduct these raids". I assume when you say (in the first sentence) "certain ants", you mean "certain species of ants". So singling out one in the second sentence and saying that species "usually" conducts these raids makes one wonder: why "usually"? Usually compared to what? Is it the ant species most often engaged in conducting raids on termite nests? Also, in the last part of the second sentence beginning with "although", by "other ants", I assume you mean "other species of ants", not other individual ants, but that could be a little clearer. Also, why not mention the species?


 * Did some edits, by saying that certain species in Ponerinae conduct raids. Also, the source is not specific with the species.


 * 6) The next sentence:


 * Ants such as Megaponera analis attack termites while Dorylinae ants attack underground.


 * is really unclear.


 * (a) How does this sentence relate to the previous sentence? Are either of these species in the groups mentioned in the previous sentence? If not, why not?


 * (b) The way this sentence is structured, the two species, Megaponera analis and Dorylinae are contrasted (with "while"), but where is the contrast? One attacks termites and the other attacks – what? – underground?


 * Does it help if I changed it to "and"?


 * Burklemore1 No. Even if you substitute "and", there's got to be some kind of balance between the two halves of the sentence, the two items:


 * One attacks termites and the other attacks....... (what?), or


 * One attacks termites.......(where?) and the other attacks termites underground. Corinne (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, did some clarification.


 * 7) In the second-to-last sentence in that section, what are "cross treated samples". Corinne (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed it because the source was discussing about the food (the plant), and I thought it'd be more straightforward.

Alt text
This has absolutely nothing to do with the current GA nomination; I am ready to promote the article as soon as you two indicate that you are finished. I am, however, looking ahead to where you and Corinne decide that this article is ready to nominate for FA. Making the article accessible to low-vision users employing screen readers is, in my opinion, rather important to any article aspiring to a featured status. I've started adding some alt text to a few figures. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I think we should get alternative opinions from other editors who are not familiar with the article and see what they think about it. We could do a peer review to address additional comments if we do wish to work this up to FA status, but sometimes the process can be disappointing (people nowadays usually don't pay attention to insect articles, which makes it a lot more difficult). I'm fine with the alt text to some of the figures, it's necessary to make sure this article can cater to all readers. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most editors don't concern themselves with alt text and don't consider it at all in FA decisions. I do, for various reasons that I don't need to go into. GA is usually pretty straightforward, unless you get a reviewer who is into petty displays of power. FA is a long, tedious, often frustrating process that lots of people don't care to subject themselves to. I've never attempted it and probably never will. It's up to you whether you want to try it. Let's finish with GA first, though. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's a nice addition and I fully support its incorporation. All of my reviewers including yourself have been great to me and the usual result is a very nicely done article. Banded sugar ant is the only article I have promoted to FA. Its far smaller than Termite, yet the process was well over a month. If I want to try it, I want the opinions of other editors to see if it's worthy. But yes, we should focus on GA first. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I have addressed all of the comments you and Corinne have raised, although I need one of you to double check my recent addition. Aside from that, do you guys have anymore comments? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

GA
Made a few corrections and promoted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for undertaking this review, your professionalism and outstanding job should be pursued by others in the future. This is the perhaps the most detailed review I have gone through yet, and I'm also grateful for your help, copyediting and contributions to the article. Thank you also to Corinne, who did an outstanding job with copyediting, contributing and raising additional issues which helped so much. So thank you guys for this excellent review. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.
 * Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 09:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bfpage, only just saw this, but it's never late to thank you for recognising our achievements! :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I just want you to feel appreciated. The Very Best of Regards,  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 02:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)