# Talk:Myrmeciites

This review is transcluded from Talk:Myrmeciites/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You use the term form genus many times, but most readers wouldn't know what this means, so it needs to be explained, and why it is considered a form genus.
I assume you would prefer the term "form genus" to be briefly explained in the body of the article. Myrmeciites was established because ants placed in the subfamily which cannot be truly identified at genus level due to their poor preservation are all placed here. This entirely correlates with the sentence in the form classification article: "Form classification, generally restricted to palaeontology, reflects uncertainty". With that said, the placement of these fossils in Myrmeciinae, until better preserved specimens are discovered, is uncertain.

Yes, I mean the term form genus itself could be briefly explained at first mention outside the intro, in parenthesis or such.
Alright, I have briefly explained what a form genus is.
"Baroni Urbani further adds that Myrmeciites, as stated by Archibald and colleagues, that fossil ants referable to Myrmeciinae" Weird sentence.
I feel like most of this sentence was a bit redundant, so it was removed. 

"lack details needed for placement in the described genera." In other described genera?
Done.

"As the Myrmeciites is a form genus" A genus name is already definite, so "the" should be deleted.
Removed.

"The nuptial flight of M. (?) tabanifluviensis is said to have occurred during the late spring or summer.[16]" Based on what?
The source comments about the historical latitude and altitude of the horsefly river but there may be other factors. I'm not entirely sure what to incorporate or what the source exactly concludes in a simple manner, so would you be able to get anything out of it? If you want to read it, it's the second paragraph on the left hand side in page 505. 

Rewrote it a bit, in spite of the convoluted season stuff (which I guess has something to do with how long each season lasted and when, or something), it basically just says they would had done it during the same season as extant relatives. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the edits. :)
"The shape of the petiole is distinct" Explain and link petiole.
Done.

"Within Myrmeciinae, the size of M.(?) goliath and having a head that is smaller in proportion to the mesosoma then seen in the other species." Weirdly written sentence.
Removed sentence, but I have retained some of the information in a newly written sentence. 

"from the Latin name "Hercules"" Perhaps explain who it is, like you did with Goliath?
Done.

The intro says "but their identity as an ant has been challenged." but the article doesn't clearly state this. Could it be elaborated? You say it cannot be identified as one type of ant specifically, but how does that make it unclear that they are even ants at all?
I have written that they have been classified as incertae sedis in Hymenoptera instead, but later reports indirectly reject this classification and remain consistent with Archibald et al. 

Perhaps write in parenthesis what groups are within Hymenoptera? FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I will assume you mean what group of insects are members of Hymenoptera, so I have added that in. Not sure if you want it in the lead or body though.
In the body. After it is moved, I'm ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, unlike what I saw said in another review, it is perfectly fine to use specimen numbers in articles about fossil taxa. Used in several FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I removed the specimen numbers in another article which was reverted back. It was assumed out of my ignorance and lack of knowledge that they weren't important, but I guess they are. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Did the last fix myself, so passed! FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
As always, thank you for the review and thanks for helping out with some. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)