# Talk:Sphecomyrma

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sphecomyrma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I will add all my comments in the next few days. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Beautiful, comprehensive article. My comments: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
Link extinct
Done.

Who was Frey? (Also in Taxonomy section)
I can't really answer that; I think they were just ordinary civilians or whatnot. 

Best to ignore it if there is no info. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
In 1967 E. O. Wilson, Frank Carpenter and William L. Brown, Jr. If they were all zoologists, you can write "In 1967, zoologists..."
Done.

Funiculus and metapleural gland are each linked twice
Done, but funiculus is linked once in the lead, and again in the description section unless you want that removed. 

Funiculus showed up as both it and antenna link to Antenna (biology). Let us not explain it here and elongate the lead, though. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I know one of the subsections in "antenna (biology)" discusses the funiculus, in which I have now linked it there. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Two additional species, Sphecomyrma canadensis and Sphecomyrma mesaki You can put Sphecomyrma as simply S.
Done. 

were described in 1985 and 2005 "respectively"
Done.

Link clade
Done.

due to the possible absence of the metapleural gland  In whom?
Sphecomyrma.


### Taxonomy
Link amber, mineralogical, Princeton University, mandible, outcrop
Linked. 

First para
Would be good to add how long ago Cretaceous was (as in the lead)
Done?

Add who Carpenter is in note A.
Done, did you still want an explanation as to who is he in the main article? 

No, it should suffice. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Alright, did a little tweak.
Link (if possible) and explain hymenopterous
It's pretty much the same as Hymenoptera, the order the ant belongs to.  

Such link may provide the time and early origins of ants "a" after "such". You don't "provide" origins, perhaps "shed light on the origins of ants" ("the time" looks redundant)
Done. 

scientists cannot explain  As the problems "were" and not "are", should "cannot" be "could not"?
Done, I think.

Second para
in a Science journal article they published in 1967 "in an article they published in 1967 in the journal Science".
Done. 

some characteristics were inaccurate "proven accurate" gives an impression that there would be no inaccuracies, then this part comes as a surprise.
Added "somewhat", which would give the impression it was accurate to an extent. 

Upon examining collected specimens, however, show that these ants  "Examination of collected specimens, however, shows that..."
Done.

Fourth para
E. O. Wilson provided the first description of the fossil Simply say Wilson. Similarly, Wilson can be called "he" in Wilson notes that the fossils resembled S. freyi... 
Done. 

Wilson notes...done with confidence "...the close resemblance of the fossils to S. freyi in key characteristics strongly support its inclusion in Sphecomyrminae."
Done.

The age of these fossils are approximately 79 to 92 million years "are estimated at"
Done. 

Fifth para
Who is Fedoseeva?
Russian palaeoentomologist, clarified. 

Evolution
Link phylogenetic, sister
Done.

Explain gaster
Done.


### Description
Explain scape, funiculus, filiform (link?), suture, mesosoma, propodeum, metasoma, cuticle, setae, stinger (link?), alitrunk (link at first mention), compound eye (link?), clypeus, ocelli, orifice, anterior, anterodorsal, metanotum, atrium (link?), coxae, setose
Will be doing....

Done. Please double check.
The body structure shows that Sphecomyrma is a primitive formicid that is medium in size "primitive" looks repeated, you can say "The body structure shows that Sphecomyrma ants were medium-sized formicids."
Done. 

but the head of S. freyi is wider than S. canadensis Rephrase as "but has a narrower head"
Done.

where it is notably see-through "transparent"?
Done.

Duplinks: pedicel, tarsus
Is there? I haven't seen any duplinks.
It showed up so because the links to subsections in the same page, I think we can leave these. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine if it links to different sections specficially talking about the subject.
In S. mesaki say "first" instead of "1st" in the 1st tarsomere.
Done.

 the fourth tarsomere only has two pairs Swap "has" and "only"
Done.


### Ecology
"Some scientists" might look vague, name a few.
Done. 

Explain trophallaxis and eusocial
Done. 

based on their large eyes, long appendages and thin exoskeleton Not sure what "based on" means here. Do you mean we are guessing they were epigaeic on the basis of this evidence?
Yes. Did a little rewrite. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Rest looks good. These done, I would be happy to promote this. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of your comments (or have tried to). Please double check. I figured I'd do this review first instead of meat ant because it was noticeably shorter. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, you have been quick and efficient. I did a few minor tweaks, and I find no more issues in the article. It more than meets the GA criteria. I am happy to promote this, splendid work! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
And I must thank you for an efficient, thorough and excellent review. I am appreciative of that. By the way I am almost done with meat ant, I just have to add some explanations to some complicated terms in the description section. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)