Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article would greatly benefit to receive feedback on where it currently stands in quality from the community. This was also a former GA candidate which was withdrawn due to a lot of grammatical issues, poor layout and complicated, irrelevant and contradictory statements, as well as current hardships in my personal life which strained time on actually trying to improve the article. After review, it was greatly expanded, and
issues that were not solved during GA review are now dealt with, and a copyedit was initiated. Editors who are particularly interested in the medical fields and have high standard knowledge are especially encouraged to make comment to this, since that would help me a lot to bring this article to GA status.
Thanks,
Burklemore1 (
talk)
11:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok some notes:
Done.
Done. Feel free to let me know if you're still unsatisfied with the issue.
This statement later used in the article has also been made into a footnote.
I tried to find an explanation to this, but I was unsuccessful. Removed.
Removed sentence altogether.
Rewrote. Hopefully it appears better.
Removed most.
I assume you mean the parts in "Interaction with humans"? If so this is done.
This article is looking much improved from when I last looked at it. A few points:
I will read the article and correct any I see. I'll notify you here and ask you to check if it's all good.
Replacing "jack jumper" with your recommendations now. Just check if you're happy once I have finished.
I have changed it to "chemical control". Is this better?
I will check for some parts to remove. However as said below, the length is not exactly a reason to fail the article from GA, unless you can think of an exception to this.
I have copy-edited the article slightly. I think it should pass GA without much trouble this time around, as it is well structured, properly cited, and whatever else may have been said presentably written. The GA criteria do not call for perfect prose, just decent writing, which this is. I'd concur that the Interaction with Humans section has become rather long for the article; this is not reason to fail GA, but it could be hived off leaving a Main link and a short summary. A minor thing is that titles in the 'cite' template should not end with '.' as the template takes care of that; I've fixed a few of 'em. The medical part is close to straying into WP:HOWTO advice (e.g. "it is recommended to...") though it rarely crosses the line there. I haven't seen evidence that being a gamergate is controlled by a single gene, so I've replaced that implication with the simple statement that workers are gamergates. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I could not find any up to date or recent information or any specific venom component, so I have decided to remove this sentence.
I perhaps didn't see the "confusion" symptom written, but thank you for pointing it out. I will check every sentence to see if it has copyvios.
Good to see you again Snowman. So are you asking for additional verification/confirmation or such with every reference given in accordance to its cited statement? Burklemore1 ( talk) 02:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
"One synonym for the species has been published – Ponera ruginoda (also titled Myrmecia ruginoda),[10] described by Smith in the same work based on a holotype male.[5] The synonym was initially placed into the genera Ectatomma and Rhytidoponera.[11][12] It was later classified as a junior synonym of the jack jumper ant, after specimens of each were compared.[1][13][14] Between ants with occipital carinae, the species was shown to be a monophyletic grouping, while other such Myrmecia ants were found to form a paraphyletic and basal assemblage"
"Jack jumper ants are highly territorial; fights between these ants are not uncommon, even among those of the same colony."
These are two different facts. Their behaviour of being highly territorial isn't related to them fighting each other.
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article would greatly benefit to receive feedback on where it currently stands in quality from the community. This was also a former GA candidate which was withdrawn due to a lot of grammatical issues, poor layout and complicated, irrelevant and contradictory statements, as well as current hardships in my personal life which strained time on actually trying to improve the article. After review, it was greatly expanded, and
issues that were not solved during GA review are now dealt with, and a copyedit was initiated. Editors who are particularly interested in the medical fields and have high standard knowledge are especially encouraged to make comment to this, since that would help me a lot to bring this article to GA status.
Thanks,
Burklemore1 (
talk)
11:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok some notes:
Done.
Done. Feel free to let me know if you're still unsatisfied with the issue.
This statement later used in the article has also been made into a footnote.
I tried to find an explanation to this, but I was unsuccessful. Removed.
Removed sentence altogether.
Rewrote. Hopefully it appears better.
Removed most.
I assume you mean the parts in "Interaction with humans"? If so this is done.
This article is looking much improved from when I last looked at it. A few points:
I will read the article and correct any I see. I'll notify you here and ask you to check if it's all good.
Replacing "jack jumper" with your recommendations now. Just check if you're happy once I have finished.
I have changed it to "chemical control". Is this better?
I will check for some parts to remove. However as said below, the length is not exactly a reason to fail the article from GA, unless you can think of an exception to this.
I have copy-edited the article slightly. I think it should pass GA without much trouble this time around, as it is well structured, properly cited, and whatever else may have been said presentably written. The GA criteria do not call for perfect prose, just decent writing, which this is. I'd concur that the Interaction with Humans section has become rather long for the article; this is not reason to fail GA, but it could be hived off leaving a Main link and a short summary. A minor thing is that titles in the 'cite' template should not end with '.' as the template takes care of that; I've fixed a few of 'em. The medical part is close to straying into WP:HOWTO advice (e.g. "it is recommended to...") though it rarely crosses the line there. I haven't seen evidence that being a gamergate is controlled by a single gene, so I've replaced that implication with the simple statement that workers are gamergates. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I could not find any up to date or recent information or any specific venom component, so I have decided to remove this sentence.
I perhaps didn't see the "confusion" symptom written, but thank you for pointing it out. I will check every sentence to see if it has copyvios.
Good to see you again Snowman. So are you asking for additional verification/confirmation or such with every reference given in accordance to its cited statement? Burklemore1 ( talk) 02:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
"One synonym for the species has been published – Ponera ruginoda (also titled Myrmecia ruginoda),[10] described by Smith in the same work based on a holotype male.[5] The synonym was initially placed into the genera Ectatomma and Rhytidoponera.[11][12] It was later classified as a junior synonym of the jack jumper ant, after specimens of each were compared.[1][13][14] Between ants with occipital carinae, the species was shown to be a monophyletic grouping, while other such Myrmecia ants were found to form a paraphyletic and basal assemblage"
"Jack jumper ants are highly territorial; fights between these ants are not uncommon, even among those of the same colony."
These are two different facts. Their behaviour of being highly territorial isn't related to them fighting each other.