# Talk:Black-headed sugar ant

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black-headed sugar ant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Looks like a well put-together article. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Josh. Looking forward to it. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"and various colouration" I'm not clear on what this means.
Workers and such will sometimes have different coloured gasters and mesosomas. For example, one workers gaster will be brown while another workers will be a different colour. The description section can explain this properly. Not exactly sure how to word this properly though, but I'll try and think of a reasonable sentence.

I rewrote the sentence and added another in the description. I looked at one source and minor workers are usually examined when entomologists try to identify similar looking species.
"Etymology" sections are normally merged with taxonomy sections- given that there isn't that much to say, here, perhaps that would be advisable?
Merged.

Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you mean the Ancient Greek language rather than the Greek language?
Yes. This has been fixed.

"In 1887, Italian entomologist Carlo Emery described a new subspecies for the species since it shared similar characteristics with it, but the size of some subspecies specimens he collected from Adelaide and Queensland were smaller (6 to 10 millimetres (0.24 to 0.39 in))." I think this could do with being rephrased- it's fairly difficult to follow.
Rephrased. Not sure if it will meet satisfaction though. 

"as a valid species in 1934" I think you mean full species. "Valid" normally concerns a valid name
Yes. Reworded.

"The ant is a member of the Camponotus nigriceps species group, a group consisting of nine species that are closely related to one another.[2]" Is it perhaps worth listing them?
Perhaps so if it involves clarification on which species are grouped. I'm not sure how you would want them listed, but I have added the species in. Also created articles for them so the red links don't appear.

"One taxon is synonymised for the black-headed sugar ant.[2]" More details? And presumably you mean one name is synonymous, not one taxon. (In any case, I suspect more than one would be, as Smith's original name and Wheeler's subspecies name would both be synonymous, surely?)
Decided to drop this sentence seeing it would not make much sense if there are multiple synonyms. I've added Smith's Formica nigriceps to the synonym list and will further look at the names given in the Hymenoptera Name Server source. 

"and the subspecies only grow to 6 to 10 millimetres (0.24 to 0.39 in)." Perhaps you could save the discussion of the subspecies until after you have discussed the nominate subspecies? Alternatively, at least split it off into a separate sentence?
Reorganised the section slightly. Discussion about the subspecies has its own sentence now.

Could we have more about the way the species attends to caterpillars? This is not something I'm clear on.
Unfortunately the sources don't really say how they attend to them. 

Edit: Actually, I may have found some extra info. This source goes in slight detail about the ant association, and the black-headed sugar ant is the only listed ant attendant.
I added some detail about the association between them. The workers will excavate chambers for them and pretty much guard them when they emerge at night to feed on leaves. Let me know if my edit needs further improvement.
"While no studies suggest the exact time nuptial flight occurs for the black-headed sugar ant" Does your source say this explicitly?
I guess this was just assumed on my end since I failed to any source reflecting on their nuptial flight, so I have most likely violated the original research part. I have rewritten it. 

Just so we're clear, am I right to believe that this ant is only found in Australia?
Yes, this ant is only found in Australia. I haven't found any sources of its presence in other countries, nor anything about it being introduced to any other country. Very common ant here as a matter of fact. 

Some sourcing questions... Not the biggest deal for GAC, but perhaps useful:
You don't need retrieval dates on journal articles, but you do on webpages.
Removed retrieval dates from journals. What about the Online Etymology Dictionary source? I have seen some articles that are GA and FA that usually don't add the access date. 

"Rudow, Dr." - "Dr." is not a first name!
Haha yeah, the journal only had his last name and I was contemplating whether or not to keep it. I did numerous searches on trying to find his first name but no luck, so I removed his name. 

No, don't remove the whole thing- half a name is better than no name! Just use author= instead of first=/last= and refer to him by surname. There may be an abbreviation somewhere for unknown first names (this must come up a lot?), but I don't know it off the top of my head. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I'll do that right now. Thanks for letting me know!
As a general note, I'm not so keen on the way you lean on some very old newspaper articles- probably not the most appropriate source for an article of this sort! I have removed one of them, as "pest"-control norms are the kind of thing which could easily change in the 80-odd years since publication.
No worries, I have no problem with this.

"Wheeler, William M. (1910). "Ants; their structure, development and behavior". Columbia University press (9). doi:10.5962/bhl.title.1937. ISSN 0069-6285. LCCN 10008253//r88. OCLC 560205." Your formatting is a little odd, here- is this a book? Journal article?
I'm quite puzzled whether or not it is a book or journal. I'll get back to you on that one.

Edit: I believe this is a book. I have done an edit to it.
I'd advise dropping the publishers/subtitles for journals.
Dropped the publishers. 

Does the article need to be in Category:Insects of Australia, seeing as it's in Category:Hymenoptera of Australia?
Removed. 
Images are good, sources are great (some are a little old, but I'm not going to lose sleep over that). Really nice little article. I've done some moderate copyediting- please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-editing the article. Looks all good to me. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, it seems I have addressed all issues you have provided. I'm still "thingy" with some edits I have made in response to some of your points, but I'm sure most have been done appropriately. Let me know if some still need attention and I'll get on it right away. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Some more quick comments. This is coming together nicely... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sources calling it endemic to Australia, rather than merely indigenous?
I changed it to "endemic", most sources would say or imply this.  

"Workers and soldiers can be confused with other ants due to their similar appearances, but its distinctive black head and examination of minor worker specimens to other species can distinguish it from other ants." Unclear
Hmm, seems like this part may see continuous problems. I have dropped the sentence unless you have any suggestions.

Actually, the lede looked too short for my liking. I just added a bit of their description instead of going on about mis-identification or similarity.
"Colonies dwell in dry regions, open areas or in dry sclerophyll woodland" This could do with being tightened. "Dry regions" and "open areas" are not exclusive.
While this is most likely straightforward, can you go in slightly more detail with this one? I don't mean to sound dumb at all, by the way.

Seems like this issue was was raised later below. Ah well, done anyway.
"The subspecies only grow to 6 to 10 millimetres (0.24 to 0.39 in)." All forms? Including the queen? (Also, you should spell out the name of the subspecies. Technically, all members of the species are members of a subspecies.)
Emery only described a worker and solider for this subspecies from what I have read.

Edit: I have clarified the forms and included the name, but I'm not exactly sure where you wanted me to spell out the subspecies.
Haven't finished, but gotta dash... I've made a few more copyedits...

@J Milburn: Just pinging you if you haven't got any notification here. Sorry if I am interrupting you in any way, just seeing if you have seen any of my comments. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a busy week- I'll aim to get to this today! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologise, completely understandable. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"Colonies dwell in dry regions, open areas or in dry sclerophyll woodland," These aren't mutually exclusive.
Reworded. 

"Workers are mostly brown with light patches noticeable on the head and mesosoma, and their clypei and mandibles are even darker; the legs are either black or brown." Reference?
Statement is from McArthur & Adams 1996. Added citation. 

"Black-headed sugar ants mostly live in dry regions or open areas, particularly in pastures." Again
Reworded. 

I note that this is in the category "Biting insects", but this isn't mentioned in the article.
Decided to remove the category.

Do you have any sources mentioning how common the species is?
I have failed to find any sources mentioning the true extent of how common it is. All I know is it can be found in most states, and most of the time people disregard this species and assume it as Camponotus consobrinus. Even I mistook it until I did some analysis on its appearance.
There are some other bits which I think could be better written/clarified, but, as far as this review is concerned, I'm happy to promote once these three points have been fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright cool. I have a pounding headache right now so I'm probably gonna go and sleep, so I'll try and get all your issues addressed when I wake up. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a question which you didn't answer, so I'll ask again; can you clarify as to what needs to be exactly changed with the distribution points? I'm unsure what is the problem with them. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Take "dwell in dry regions, open areas or in dry sclerophyll woodland"- do you mean something like "dry regions, including open areas or dry scleropyll woodland"? Because while "dry sclerophyll woodland" and "open areas" are different things, both could be dry or not dry. Does this clarify the worry I have? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ohh, I get you now. Alright thanks for the clarification, I should be able to complete the article with ease unless you have anymore points to raise. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright, it seems like I have again raised all issues you have addressed. Apologies for not doing it on time as I said I would, I got caught with IRL things. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, great stuff- I'm going to go ahead and promote at this time. The article's looking fairly strong to my non-expert eyes. If you have your eye on FAC (I note, though, that this is probably a good way short of that right now), you may want to talk to others who have written insect articles; Casliber (talk · contribs) has written at least one FA about an Australian insect, and may be interested in offering some help. Anyway, good work! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have seen some of his brilliant articles, so help from him would be beneficial. I hope to strive to that level in the upcoming future, but thanks for the review! :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)