# Talk:Archimyrmex

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archimyrmex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I propose to undertake this review and will read through the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Cheers for taking this on! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


### First reading
The article looks good, and the prose is of a higher quality than other articles of yours that I have previously reviewed.

Thank you, I'm pretty wonky on how to write an article in an encyclopedic tone. Overall I'm pretty good with my writing skills, so I hope my previous articles haven't left any impressions. Also, do you know what is going on with legobot?
Legobot seems a bit erratic. I got a notification of a successful GA about 2 weeks after it passed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Similar case, it posted two successful GA articles recently on my talk page, but they passed awhile ago. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of words that could be wikilinked or explained: alitrunk, scape, mandible, denticle, scutum, podeum, gaster, antennomere, propodeum, petiole, node, mesosoma, counterpart and probably others.
Doing... I will do this as soon as I wake up.
Y Alitrunk seems to be the same thing as mesosoma, so I have made it consistent. I have wikilined and explained some technical terms, but it seems some of the terms recommended have already been linked, so readers can easily know what the article is talking about. I have checked around and could not see anymore things that should be linked or explained.
That's OK. I made the list when I was just about to stop editing, and did not have time to check whether the words were explained elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"Mrs Cockerell" - It looks a bit odd making this bald statement without a preamble. She was presumable related to Theodore Dru Alison Cockerell, was she also a zoologist or paleontologist?
Y I'm confident that the source is mentioning Wilmatte Porter Cockerell, who was a botanist and entomologist well known for all the fauna she has discovered and collected.  

"They placed the species into a new genus, "Ameghinoia" as "Ameghinoia" piatnitzkyi. - I don't think you need the inverted commas in the species name.
Y Removed.

""P." smekali." - ditto.
Y Removed.

"The specific epithet was chosen by Dlussky." - This seems a curious statement. Who was Wedmann or why was the name chosen? Might it not be better to say that the ant was first described by Dlussky.
Y Added info.

"Baroni Urbani justifies his decision by stating the characters of the ant are clearly noticeable in the genus Cariridris." - Do you mean that the characters are "similar to" those of Cariridris?
Y Done.

"Unlike the other species, the petiole of A. piatnitzkyi has a notable and distinct node separated further from A. smekali by the lack of a post-petiole constriction and the abdomen is oval shaped." - this sentence is rather convoluted.
Y Chopped it down.

"A. wedmannae from Germany is described from a single gyne that is approximately 23 mm (0.91 in), found in the Messel pit 47 million years ago." - I doubt it was found 47 million years ago!
Y Did a small rewrite.

"The propodeum has small denticles and weakly convex, and the legs are long." - Missing an "is"?
Y Added in.

That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have addressed your final comment, so can you do some double checks on my edits? Thank you, Burklemore1 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


### GA criteria
The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose, grammar, structure and layout. 
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research. 
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed. 
The article is neutral. 
The article is stable. 
The single image is relevant, has a suitable caption, and is properly licensed. 
Final assessment - I am happy with the improvements made to the article during the review and believe the article meets the GA criteria.  Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
As always, thank you for initiating the review! Burklemore1 (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)