Talk:Prionomyrmex

Prionomyrmex has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 11, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Insects: Ants Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Ant task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prionomyrmex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 13:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will start review shortly.

Cheers for taking this on. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In the sentence in the lead "They had a powerful stinger that was used to subdue prey", who is "they"? Please clarify. Rewrote. In the section "Discovery and classification", can you write what monotypy is in parenthesis after the word? Monotypy is a rather technical term. Done. In the section "P. wappleri", please change "from the Late Oligocene, Aquitanian stage 29 to 30 million years before present" to "from the Aquitanian stage 29 to 30 million years ago" Done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The ecology section needs to be expanded. ~~I will try and find additional sources.~~ Ecology has been expanded; the latest addition pretty much covers all known info about its ecology.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Other:

The last paragraph of "Discovery and classification" needs to be split up. The Etymology of the genus cannot be in the same paragraph as the cladogram. Gug01 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

In the lead, there is a link to Formicidae that says bulldog ant, so like this: [[Ant|bulldog ant]]. Please fix the link. Gug01 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.