# Talk:Macabeemyrma

I have expanded this article to a reasonable length. I'll be doing some more expansion, but the article is extremely comprehensive despite its length. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, seems I have found some info about its ecology and phylogenetic position. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Macabeemyrma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Animalparty (talk · contribs) 18:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Glad to offer my first GA review on this. Will have comments by the end of the day (maybe sooner!) --Animalparty! (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for taking this on. Because the article is rather small, I believe this review will be straightforward, but I look forward to your comments. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
And here is my review: --Animalparty! (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC) 
Lead

The genus and species was described by Archibald, Cover and Moreau, but the holotype was not collected by them, nor in 2006: "collected by unknown person, donated to TRU by David Langevin in 2002." (Archibald et al. 2006 p. 500)
Rewritten.

I think it's a bit more straightforward to reword as something like "...known from Ypresian stage (early Eocene) lake deposits...", reading from specific to more general.
Specifically, did you just want that statement kept and the rest of the sentence removed?

switching between "It" and "they" is a bit confusing, and "they" is ambiguous: presumably "they" are members of Macabeemyrma, but from the way written could also be construed as referring to Ypresiomyrma.
Clarified.

Is it necessary to bring up Prionomyrmecini in the lead, or in the article at all? The lead implies that readers would already be expecting this (an unlikely assumption), and seems like nitty gritty taxonomic stuff better left to the body.
Removed.
Discovery and classification

I'm not sure it is useful or necessary to list both or any of the holotype specimen numbers. Seems a bit jargony (we're writing for general readers, not paleontologists) and I don't think any comprehension would be lost by simply saying holotype.
Removed.

"First studied" seems somewhat presumptuous (others could have studied it prior to 2006, published or not), and it would be more straightforward to simply state "described". I also think it's extraneous detail to mention the journal of publication, which is included in the references.
Rewrote. Also added detail of it being collected by an unknown person. Will do this next for the lead. 

In accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature recommendations, the locality name was spelled Macabee.  As a vaguely interesting etymological aside, I think extraneous detail like this is best put into footnotes, e.g. {{efn}}, rather than left in the main text, where most readers probably won't care.
Added as a note.

I think it's important to give more weight to the views of Urbani, 2008 who, with detailed justification, didn't even recognize the genus as reliably being an ant! Granted both of these are primary points of view, but until we have a review article that contextualizes, weighs, and offers a verdict, we should present both views with equal weight (the only other literature mention I can find (here) briefly mentions Macabeemyrma using the classification of Archibald et al., but does not justify, nor comment on Urbani, 2008)
Odd. I'll try and see what Urbani wrote in his piece of literature and see his reasons.

Urbani has wrote his reasons as to why it is incertae sedis in Hymenoptera, it's quite lengthy too. Should we later add on the fact that later literature does not comment on Urbani's justification??
Oops, I sounded dumb just then.
Okay, I have added a sentence about Urbani's classification. Also added that Dlussky did not make any acknowledgement on Urbani's comments and still considered it a member of Myrmeciinae.
The two cladograms could use some mention of why they differ, and perhaps rather than "show the possible phylogenetic position", should more accurately say "show two possible phylogenetic positions". Note, the second cladogram is functionally identical to the first, only more taxa are added: both place Macabeemyrma as more closely related to Nothomyrmecia than either of them are to Prionomyrmex, and so for simplicity perhaps just the first one should be included.
I'll try and see what makes them differ.

Well apparently the two cladograms are calculated from two and 173 parsimonious trees, respectively. I've incorporated it in.
Description

Its elongated head and mandibles distinguish this species from those in the genus Ypresiomyrma, but they possibly have a close phylogenetic relationship... Again, It and they, and who exactly is "they"?
Clarified.

It cannot be... The exact shape of the mandibles cannot be properly determined, but they are generally... More accurate to say "could not be" (future discoveries or studies could change things), and "generally" cannot apply to a single specimen.
Fixed.

Evidence shows... but these ants were never classified in the tribe Prionomyrmecini What kind of evidence? Does "these ants" refer to all the previously mentioned genera? The "but" implies that some of the taxa would be expected to be in Prionomyrmecini (perhaps taking more of the tone of Archibald et al.), and I think it is perfectly acceptable to omit all mention of Prionomyrmecini in this article for the time being, under the philosophy that simpler is better.
Removed.

The last sentence is uncited. Does the article directly mention presence or absence of a sting? (As an aside, do queen ants even have stings?)
Certain queens do have stings. Myrmecia queens have stings, and I would assume this is so because they are claustral, hunting for their prey to feed to its young. They're primitive, so it wouldn't surprise me. If I recall, the fossilised queen is too poorly preserved to actually confirm whether or not it had a sting, and I would assume a new better preserved Macabeemyrma specimen needs to be collected so a more detailed morphological analysis can be carried out. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Added citation. Their comment on the sting is "The presence or absence of a sting cannot be determined by preservation."
Ecology

As mentioned previously... Long legs were not mentioned previously, and the phrase seems extraneous.
Oops, removed. 

I think it would be good to include "like other Myrmeciinae" or "like some species of Myrmecia", to add more context to exceptions, e.g.  "Colonies most likely nested in the soil like most other Myrmeciinae, but it is possible they were an arboreal nesting species (as in some Myrmecia species)
Done. If you're unhappy with my change just let me know.
Concluding remarks 
Once the above points are addressed, especially a bit more weight to Urbani, 2008, this article would meet GA- the fossil bed is a nice illustration, unfortunately no suitably licensed images of the fossil seem to exist. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I got a bit excited when I saw a "creative commons" licence attached, but unfortunately they cannot be distributed because of the conditions. I'll have to make a trip to British Columbia one day so I can attain an image. Also thanks for the detailed comments. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems I have addressed the issues you have raised and expanded on the remarks of Urbani, providing his point of view. However, please double check my edits and let me know if anymore improvements are needed. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Burklemore1: Thanks for making the changes. I expanded and clarified the point of view of Urbani, striving to keep technical terms at a minimum. I also consolidated the lead, relegating less pertinent details to the body, reduced some redundancy, and moved some content from Description to classification. With all the new edits since my last review, I feel the article now is more factually accurate, broad in coverage, and neutral. If you think these changes are too drastic, you may request another reviewer, but I believe this passes GA. Cheers! --Animalparty! (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
All your changes are fine and I thank you for the in depth and detailed review. Thanks for taking your time with the article too, it's appreciated! :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Pass!

I have added a reconstruction I've done of the head capsule of M. ovata. It is drawn from speculations about the type fossil and details filled in from Nothomyrmecia, as it may be a sister group and provides as good of clues as any. M. A. Broussard (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)