 | Myrmecia inquilina has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 19, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
.svg){kind=small} | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A fact from Myrmecia inquilina appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 December 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg){kind=logo}
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Myrmecia inquilina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Taking a look now. notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers for taking this on! Burklemore1 (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
link endemic, social parasite (if possible), worker caste (if possible),
Linked, social parasitism directs to parasitism and no link is available for worker caste.
Aggression between any host species --> the host species with each other???
Did a small rewrite, although you may need to double check this one.
This is due to many authors believing- could change to "Many authors believed" and link to previous with semicolon.
Done.
why are we not linking to Myrmecia gulosa and Myrmecia cephalotes in the taxo section?
Linked. I shall address the rest of your issues soon (probably next afternoon). I'll probably finish it off now.
- link burn-off, fluorescent
Linked.
Otherwise looking ok....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
- Pass or Fail: - succinct and fine. does the job nicely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)