Talk:Yantaromyrmex

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yantaromyrmex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'll review this one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on.

• Perhaps an image like this could be interesting in the history section?[1]

Y Added.

• "relatives of either an Agathis relative or a Pseudolarix relative" Sounds a bit clumsy with the "relative of a relative"

Y Chopped down slightly.

• "The species described in 2013," Why are these mentioned by date under distribution, when the other species aren't?

Y Removed from distribution, but added info in history and classification.

• History could need a line break, instead of being a wall of text.

Y Done.

• "were collected over 125 years ago" This is a meaningless recentism, as the article here will remain for many years. Better to mention the approximate date. It occurs twice in the article

Y Used date.

• "All the Y. samlandicus type specimens" What is meant here, that they were part of a syntype series?

Y Yes (based on a recent source that mentions many syntype workers). Clarified.

• Nothing on behaviour and ecology?

Unfortunately no. I have been looking through pretty much all available sources and no author has discussed the behaviour and ecology of these ants.

Wait, yes there is! Found some material in the most frequently used source all this time.

Y Added sentence. It's brief, but it's better than nothing about a group of ants that hardly anyone knows about.

Nice, but perhaps it should be added to the section about the species, as single line sections are discouraged. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done.

• There are many technical terms under description that could need some kind of explanation in parenthesis.

Will look through the description.

Clarified and linked some technical terms.

• "The antennae have a scape which just passes the back-edge of the head capsule and both female and ergatomorphic (male) workers." Not sure what the bolded part has to do with the rest of the sentence. Did you mean on instead of and?

• fixed--Kevmin § 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The solitary worker of Y. intermedius" What is meant by this, that it is the only specimen of the species? Then "only specimen of" or some such would be clearer.

Y Yeah, there's only a holotype available. Did small tweak.

Now it isn't clear that the holotype is the only specimen, though... FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. I just used your suggestion.

• You only provide the etymology of some species names.
  • No sources etymologies for the species Wheeler described, since he did not provide any. Giving any now with out sources is OR.--Kevmin § 02:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• No cladogram?

None available, though I'm not surprised since this genus was only established two years ago and the last detailed study involving the phylogeny of Dolichoderinae was five years ago (which, by the way excluded the extinct taxa).

Okay, I have addressed your final comments, so can you do some double checking just in case I have made any potential errors or you aren't completely satisfied? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Additions look fine, so I'll pass! FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for initiating the review! Burklemore1 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)