Talk:Red imported fire ant/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 22:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good formating
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Definitely
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some stuff must be cut, unfortunately. The Distribution section lead and some parts of Toxicology should be cut in order to make the article more concise and readable.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Difficult not to be neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Minor vandalism back in August but no edit wars, etc. since 1000 edits ago.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The article is quite long and looks very detailed. Lots of work put in! Gug01 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and etymology sections are flawless, but I have a few suggestions for taxonomy. You may want to include the "social chromosome" section in Behavior as well since it pertains more to the behavior than the genetics, and the general language of the "Genetics" section in Taxonomy should be less technical to make the article more accessible. Gug01 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section Behaviour and Ecology, Paragraph 1: "Before submerging, the ants will tip themselves into the water and sever connections with the dry land. In some cases, workers may deliberately remove all males from the raft, resulting in drowning." Who is drowning? The male ants or the entire raft?

Thank you very much for reviewing this article and feedback. I'll address your concerns in one moments time! Burklemore1 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your last comment, it refers to males drowning. I have made a minor edit to the sentence. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking so long, I have had no time for Wikipedia lately. I will get onto this shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

@Burklemore1 and Gug01: Not much activity here for nearly two months. Is there any way I can help advance this review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1 and Gug01: Redoing the ping, since the lack of initial sig above will have prevented the pings from going out. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and get on with this tomorrow. I have been unable to edit Wikipedia for the past months because of work and other activities, but I can make time. Thanks for the notification. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burklemore1: Gug01 has not edited anywhere since 11 February. I'm happy to complete the long-delayed job now, if that is agreeable to you? Some comments follow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap I'm okay with that, thank you for the offer! Burklemore1 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completing the review

Nom stated (3b) that "Some stuff must be cut, unfortunately. The Distribution section lead and some parts of Toxicology should be cut in order to make the article more concise and readable." I think he's right on Distribution and Toxicology, if not other places too; I'm not sure if he intended to say "the article's lead" but it's rather a lot at 800 words and four chunky paragraphs. The length of the lead does reflect the article's length, which at 246,000 bytes is basically far too much - pasted into Word (without refs) it is 36 pages and nearly 17,000 words: it would take several hours to read. This suggests to me that we should split the article. Clearly this may be uncomfortable, but we should aim at something closer to 100,000 bytes as a reasonable maximum, following policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following Gug01's comment on Toxicology, I'd suggest we make that section a new (subsidiary) article, leaving a brief (one paragraph) summary and a "main" link behind. That will save about 5 pages, 2000 words. I note in passing that the section strays into advice and how-to, against policy: "Ants should be removed by washing the area with antiseptic soap..." Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following Gug01's comment on Distribution and habitat, that section is about 4 pages, 1800 words, and contains a longish section on Introductions. Again, this could be split off as a new subsidiary article, leaving a brief summary (a para on distribution, a para on introductions, with a main and a see also link respectively). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(These two splits will reduce the article by 1/4, down to about 27 pages)

Further reductions by splitting are less obvious. The Relationship with humans section is 1400 words, over 2 pages; it might be worth splitting out, again leaving a paragraph of summary and a main link. (about 25 pages remaining) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article will still be very long after these actions, I suggest we need to look at whether everything that is said in the article is actually necessary. Some statements are surely generic - trophic eggs, instars, arguments about kin selection, ... and could be shortened significantly. The Monogyny and polygyny section for example could be cut down sharply: for instance "However, not all behaviours are universal, primarily because worker behaviours depend on the ecological context in which they develop, and the manipulation of worker genotypes can elicit change in behaviours. Therefore, behaviours of native populations can differ from those of introduced populations." -- perhaps all we need here is "Introduced populations may behave differently." In short, I suggest a vigorous pruning throughout the article, to focus on what is unique about this ant, and to say that as briefly as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I must note I will be inactive for awhile so future edits in relation to this GA may be slightly delayed (as they are already, but work comes first unfortunately). With this being said I will try and edit as much as I can for the upcoming days. Thanks again. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this but I don't think it's worth waiting any longer. The article needs some careful editing, and that will take more effort than is currently available. I'm reluctantly closing this review now. There is material here for one or more good articles, and with appropriate focus, GA status will readily be achieved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]