# Talk:Zigrasimecia

@Burklemore1: How much of the Species description sections are redundant to each other?  The majority of the description, from what I see should be consolidated into a single section for the genus as a whole, and the specific characters that separate the two species should then be covered  in the species headers.  Also we should be looking to avoid being overaly technical.  This is a general encyclopedia after all and not antwiki. ;) --Kevmin § 13:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zigrasimecia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to see some ants again, I may review this slowly, a bit busy these days, but it seems the review queue is long anyway, so it is probably fine. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing, this year has been quite slow for ants but I'm still happy nonetheless with the outcome. If I wasn't so busy there'd be more ant articles up. Feel free to take your time, I have noticed my nominations have been waiting much longer for a reviewer these days. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
At first glance, it seems there are quite a few unexplained technical terms, especially under description, and some terms that are only linked at second occurrence.
Doing...
Done some changes.

I'm thinking the classification part could become a subsection of the history section, now it's a very big, continuous block of text...
Done.

"and -mecia which is a commonly used suffix in ant generic names." But what does it mean?
Unsure. I'd assume "ant", based on what I have seen when working with Myrmecia. 

"Zigrasimecia tonsora is known from a solitary adult fossil, the holotype" and " The holotype specimen is composed of a mostly-complete dealate adult female", seems the bolded part should be moved to the second part? A bit odd that it is described a little bit in each sentence...
Done, I think.

" this includes the holotype, numbered JWJ-Bu18a, and many paratypes " Types of what? You only reveal the name further below, but it doesn't make chronological sense to present these as type specimens before their naming has been mentioned.
Did a few changes. 

"He named it Z. ferox; its specific epithet is from the Latin word ferox" Redundant, it's the same word.
Fixed.

"Despite the similarities, it is unlikely that they are actually certain castes of the same species, especially that Z. tonsora is a dealated female" Does the bolded part mean "especially because"?
Yes.

Crown group also needs explanation.
Done.

"birds eye view" I don't think that term is appropriate for such a close view, upper might be better.
Done.

"Zigrasimecia is possibly a generalist predator." Why present tense?
Done.

@FunkMonk:, mind having a quick look? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice, I'll review the last parts (description, intro) soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
"The junction of the mesoscutellum (middle part of the scutellum and the propdeums dorsal surface are indistinct; on two Z. ferox specimens, these body parts are slightly angled." Seems part of the parenthesis is missing.
Fixed.

There are still many unexplained technical terms, you fixed many of them, but could maybe be good to add some more explanations, especially in description.
@FunkMonk: Did a few more edits, what about now?

"A pair of oval-shaped, yet melanized patches" Why the "yet"?
Removed. 

"It is also concave-shaped than it is straight." Seems a word is missing.
Done. 

As you may have noticed, I have done some edits myself.
"which existed in the Cretaceous" Add period.
Done.

"Mobility was probably important because its head was highly movable" This seems a bit like saying "speed was important, because it was very fast"...
Fixed, I think.

"Zigrasimecia most likely interacted with Gerontoformica" Explain this is another extinct ant.
Done.

Oh, seems everything has been dealt with now? FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I hope so. I've tried stamping out the complicated terms you have mentioned, but I'm not sure if there's anymore I missed. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine to me then, will pass now! I see there was an issue on the talk page about the text maybe being too technical, which someone might bring up during a FAC, but as is, I think more information is better than less, and it can be hard saying anything meaningful about fossil taxa without going into detail. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Definitely true, but luckily I am getting my head around these procedures. Thank you for the review! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As of 2023 we are up to 9 species, so the article could do with a long needed overhaul

Z. boudinoti Chaul, 2023
Z. caohuijiae Chaul, 2023
Z. chuyangsui Chaul, 2023
Z. ferox Perrichot, 2014
Z. goldingot Zhuang et al. 2021
Z. hoelldobleri Cao et al., 2020
Z. perrichoti Chaul, 2023
Z. thate Chaul, 2023
Z. tonsora Barden & Grimaldi, 2013
--Kevmin § 17:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Kevmin § 17:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)