![]() | Myrmeciites 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: August 28, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Myrmeciites appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 November 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: FunkMonk ( talk · contribs) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume you would prefer the term "form genus" to be briefly explained in the body of the article. Myrmeciites was established because ants placed in the subfamily which cannot be truly identified at genus level due to their poor preservation are all placed here. This entirely correlates with the sentence in the form classification article: "Form classification, generally restricted to palaeontology, reflects uncertainty". With that said, the placement of these fossils in Myrmeciinae, until better preserved specimens are discovered, is uncertain.
I feel like most of this sentence was a bit redundant, so it was removed.
Done.
Removed.
The source comments about the historical latitude and altitude of the horsefly river but there may be other factors. I'm not entirely sure what to incorporate or what the source exactly concludes in a simple manner, so would you be able to get anything out of it? If you want to read it, it's the second paragraph on the left hand side in page 505.
Done.
Removed sentence, but I have retained some of the information in a newly written sentence.
Done.
I have written that they have been classified as incertae sedis in Hymenoptera instead, but later reports indirectly reject this classification and remain consistent with Archibald et al.
Yeah, I removed the specimen numbers in another article which was reverted back. It was assumed out of my ignorance and lack of knowledge that they weren't important, but I guess they are. Burklemore1 ( talk) 04:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As always, thank you for the review and thanks for helping out with some. :-) Burklemore1 ( talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Myrmeciites 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: August 28, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Myrmeciites appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 November 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: FunkMonk ( talk · contribs) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume you would prefer the term "form genus" to be briefly explained in the body of the article. Myrmeciites was established because ants placed in the subfamily which cannot be truly identified at genus level due to their poor preservation are all placed here. This entirely correlates with the sentence in the form classification article: "Form classification, generally restricted to palaeontology, reflects uncertainty". With that said, the placement of these fossils in Myrmeciinae, until better preserved specimens are discovered, is uncertain.
I feel like most of this sentence was a bit redundant, so it was removed.
Done.
Removed.
The source comments about the historical latitude and altitude of the horsefly river but there may be other factors. I'm not entirely sure what to incorporate or what the source exactly concludes in a simple manner, so would you be able to get anything out of it? If you want to read it, it's the second paragraph on the left hand side in page 505.
Done.
Removed sentence, but I have retained some of the information in a newly written sentence.
Done.
I have written that they have been classified as incertae sedis in Hymenoptera instead, but later reports indirectly reject this classification and remain consistent with Archibald et al.
Yeah, I removed the specimen numbers in another article which was reverted back. It was assumed out of my ignorance and lack of knowledge that they weren't important, but I guess they are. Burklemore1 ( talk) 04:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As always, thank you for the review and thanks for helping out with some. :-) Burklemore1 ( talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)