Jump to content

Talk:Jack jumper ant/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
  • Why do we need long passages from the original description under taxonomy? Seems a bit redundant, if more recent or identical info can be found under description. Any unique info from the old description can be moved to the description section in summarised form.
Historical I guess? I mean, I have seen some GA articles that have followed this pattern (description of the bug, while using the original description under taxonomy), but I guess it was a bit excessive. I will work on this bit in a moment, after other points have been dealt with.
Can you show me such examples? Remember, you should model the article on other promoted GA articles, not any articles. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the quotes, and only mentioned he described the first specimens collected. Zygoballus sexpunctatus did something like this, but I read Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, and the editor on that article didn't violate that, most likely, so I handled that incorrectly, which is why I removed the quotes.
  • I would merge the different subsections under taxonomy. Stuff like scientific name and classification does not belong under a discussion of common names.
Done. Also, elaborate on the different subsections under taxonomy? I feel stupid for asking, but do you mean to remove the subsections and just contain "taxonomy" or something?
Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "The jack jumper ant is endemic to most of Australia, especially in Tasmania." How can it be "especially endemic" in Tasmania?
Reworded.
Hi, thanks for taking up the review. I will look at this when I wake up, as I am about to die from lack of sleep or something. Until then, these points will be addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding more comments in the meantime, and doing some copy editing. The writing is a bit messy at places, see my changes here.[1] Could had needed a bit more proof reading before nominating. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ants of the genus Myrmecia are known as "bulldog ants" Makes more sense to mention this under taxonomy.
Done.
  • "black or red and black in colour, and they may have yellow or orange legs" Is this just random variation?
Workers have appearances like these. They can have many variations in colour between one another. I changed it to "black or blackish-red in colour", if that makes more sense.
  • "One synonym for the species have been published – Ponera ruginoda, also described by Frederick Smith.[3] The jack jumper has been discussed as a single biological species since being described, after a type specimen of a male jack jumper, being under Ponera ruginoda was identified as a jack jumper ant, and direct comparison of the specimen and a jack jumper male further proved the identification." This is very convoluted writing. I would change it to "Ponera ruginoda was described as a separate species of ant by Frederick Smith in (insert year), but was later found to be a junior synonym of the jack jumper ant, after specimens of each were compared."
Rephrased. As for the insert year, I added the 1950s, since it isn't exactly clear what year, but the published sources were done in the 50s, so it could be even earlier, so I will scoop out what year this was done. If you suggest further writing for that point, just say so.
  • "When it comes to phylogenetic relationships, the jack jumper, which lacks an occiptal carina was shown to have supported a monophyletic assemblage, while other Myrmecia ants with an occiptal carina were found to form a paraphyletic and basal assemblage." Also overly convoluted. Maybe try: "Among ants with occiptal carinae, the species was shown to be a monophyletic grouping, while other such Myrmecia ants were found to form a paraphyletic and basal assemblage."
Rephrased.
  • "Their characteristic jumping motion when agitated give them their name." This should go under the discussion of common names.
Moved, also reworded with the second statement that appears to imply the same thing.
  • "Their nests may be inconspicuously hidden under a rock, or may be formed from a 20 to 60 cm diameter mound of finely granular gravel." This is about behaviour, so does not make sense under a description of the animal.
Moved to distribution and habitat, directly related to that section.
  • "but its sculpture is more irregular and coarser" What is meant by "sculpture"?
Body. reworded.
  • "Punctures (tiny dots) are noticeable on the head, which are large and shallow," What is large and shallow? Punctures or the head?
Punctures are large and shallow. Reworded.
  • "The pubescence is white and yellowish on the gaster." Needs citation. And is it specific to the male? The section is a bit messy. You should group related subjects in the same paragraphs, not spread them around.
Statement can be found in John Clark's published book. The source cited mostly with the description, but I'll add the it after the sentence. And yes, it is specific to the male. I will rewrite the description.
Update: Description has been rewritten. Information has been reordered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burklemore1 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are given the nickname "jack jumper" due to their unique feature of jumping while foraging, a characteristic some Myrmecia ants have, such as the Myrmecia nigrocincta" Redundancy, already mentioned, and should be moved to taxonomy.
Reworded and mixed in with the first statement.
That explains why is it called jumper, but not jack. I do not know if it is true, but The jack jumper - Tasmania's killer ant: 2012 from ABC Hobart says that it is named after the 'jumping-jack firecracker'. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was named after its jumping motion. Infact, all ants of the M. pilosula species group are known as "jack jumpers" as well, because of their jump, not a firecracker. M. Nigrocincta is a jack jumper, M. croslandi is a jack jumper, M. tarsata is a jack jumper, it's because of their jumping behaviour as mentioned already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burklemore1 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why does the television station say that is is named after the firework? Snowman (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how it is named after a firework, as it is precisely named after its jumping motion. I'll include it anyway.Burklemore1 (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rename the chromosome section, and move the following down there: "A study found that the jack jumper had 9 polymorphic loci, which yielded a total of 67 alleles', that ranged from three to 12 with an average of 7.44 per locus, and the observed heterozygosities ranged from 0.5625 to 0.9375, and from 0.4863 to 08711, respectively.[4]"
Moved.
  • "their cleaning habits of their mandibles on the vegetative parts of the plant" What does this mean? The way they use their mandibles to clean the plant?
When the ants were observed, they cleaned their mandibles, but because of this it prevented pollen exchange as they would move on immediately. Reworded.
  • "Jack jumper ants are proven hunters" Proven is to loaded. Good or some such is better.
Reworded.
  • "They are mostly found and located in the state of Tasmania, where they are notorious, where more people are prone to allergic reactions to the jack jumpers sting." How are they "mostly" found in Tasmania if they can be found across large areas of Australia? The last part does not belong under habitat, but under human interaction.
Reworded and moved.
I am not happy with "..., where more people are prone to allergic reactions". The relevant inline reference does not suggest that the people of Tasmania are genetically different with a different propensity to develop allergies. I suspect that it it the number of bites causing people to be allergic, rather than people being more prone to get allergic reactions. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User FunkMunk has said that he is happy with the amendments made following his comments (see below), but I am not happy with the amendment here. I would be grateful if User FunkMunk would indicate if he sees ambiguities in the current text. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your further observations are good and should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded it to where a majority of deaths have been recorded. That is much more relevant and explains why it is notorious in Tasmania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burklemore1 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the pedigree-effective number of mates" What is "pedigree-effective"?
Removed "pedigree".
  • "It has been shown that the jack jumper ant are not actually a single species, but instead show a range of chromosomes (mentioned previously) which suggests that the ant has sibling species." So it may contain more species? Such info belongs under taxonomy.
Moved.
Note: I have found that there is a M. pilosula complex species (I have written about it as a reponse to a question. I assume you'd like this mentioned? Burklemore1 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User FunkMunk has said that he is happy with the amendments made following his comments (see below), but I am still puzzled if the article is about the whole species complex or only one sub-type. Should this be in the introduction for clarity or not. I would be grateful if User FunkMunk would indicate if he is still happy with the amendment here. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is actually a species complex, we might have a scope problem. But is it? FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ant is apart of the species complex, which members ants like M. croslandi and M. nigrocincta. It's a sub-type. I will add it to the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burklemore1 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm mainly an animal guy, so I'll request a second opinion on medical aspects.
I understand that. The medical part seemed a bit too complicated (while making sense in its own way), even for myself, but I did do some reading before publishing it, so there shouldn't be too many problems. Second opinion is more than welcome.
We would be aiming for the medial topics to be easy to read. Snowman (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the description and taxonomic issues later on. I get the instructions for it, but I shall do them soon, as I am about to be occupied with something. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comments. "The jack jumper ant is notorious in Tasmania, where more people are prone to allergic reactions to the jack jumpers sting." Why are they more prone to it here?
Higher percentage of people are more vulnerable.
  • The Incidence section is a bit messy. First you mention Australia, then Tasmania, then jump back to Australia again. You should structure this better, so the related items go together.
  • I've had to fix quite a bit of spelling and grammatical errors (this is usually not done by reviewers), next time, I'd suggest that you request a copy edit of an article here[2], before nominating it.
Thank you, I will use this in the future.
  • "Patients have been suggested to avoid jack jumpers" Patients? Or people in general?
I assume people in general, so I reworded.
  • Fatality is only mentioned far down under Treatment. This is quite important, and should be stressed much earlier. Now it's just a side note.
  • "and was shown that most victims also died within 20 minutes after a sting." You're not saying most victims die?
No, most victims live. Check the new sentence and let me know if it needs changing again. I have no stated victims who have succumbed to the sting.
  • "was observed in most cases when the victims were having an autopsy" An autopsy due to what? You haven't made clear that victims actually die prior to this.
Reworded.
  • "Efficacy of ant whole body extract" What does this mean?
"the ability to produce a desired or intended result." So, intended results in jack jumper body extraction for immunotherapy remains unknown. I have explained it more in the article now.
The new line reads "Efficacy (intended results)"; however, I do not think that efficacy is equivalent to intended results. I think that efficacy means "capacity to induce a therapeutic effect". Snowman (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not mind, I have used that sentence just to fix this issue completely. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User FunkMunk has said that he is happy with the amendments made following his comments (see below), but I am not happy with the original amendment here. I would be grateful if User FunkMunk would indicate if he is happy with the amendment here or not. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole line now reads; "Efficacy (capacity to induce a therapeutic effect) of ant whole body extract immunotherapy remains unknown, ...". I have been reading about this on the internet and I understand that whole body extract is not effective and its use has been abandoned a long time ago. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it has shown that the immunotherapy has shown" I'm generally cleaning such wording up myself, but just so you are aware, that is quite sloppy writing, and there were many similar sentences throughout the article.
I'm not the best with grammar.
  • "that the availability for it is limited, and will not be widely available" Likewise, avoid such redundancies.
  • "The female (queen) has a similar appearance to a worker" The workers are females as well. Should be reworded somehow.
Entomologists sometimes use this. And also, my first GA nomination (that passed) may have also said the same thing, so I do not understand the the main issue. Yes, they are females as well, but they are usually known as workers while queens are usually known as females.
Can you show me a source which uses this terminology? It would then seem a bit redundant to call the queen "female", when it is so per definition. FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Changed. As for the terminology in the taxonomy, that will be deleted altogether when I resolve that.
  • "The jack jumper ant bite generally causes a mild local reaction" Is sting meant?
Whoops, these ants sting not bite like the redback spider. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, sting is meant.

User Funk Monk asked me to have a look in a message on my talk page. The weather is good here for this time of year giving me a chance to complete some work out of doors, so I have not got time to do a full review at this juncture. I have tried to straighten up some obvious problems in some of the sections that I looked at. My overall provisional impression it that the article needs further scrutiny and copy editing: Snowman (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article contains medical information about stings and biological information about chromosomes. If the nominator, is not familiar with these topics, then I think that the recommended option is to ask for expert assistance or a peer review (or both) prior to GA nomination. I think that the reviewer has been appropriate in asking for assistance to review this article. Unfortunately, I am busy until the UK winter, so perhaps someone else could be co-opted, perhaps User:Casliber or User:Melburnian might be interested, because they lives in Australia, but I would not want to overload them with work. Any suggestions for co-opting? Snowman (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will make a comment that I too live in Australia and I have well observed jack jumpers, and this led to me researching quite a lot on them. I have been familiar with their sting, venom and other things, but yes, the chromosome topic is a bit puzzling for me, so I just based the information off as best I could. So medical? I am familiar with. Chromosomes? Not exactly, so someone who is familiar with that field should come in. Luckily I'm not allergic since I get stung by them all the time.
I would guess that it is possible for you to become allergic to the stings. Snowman (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, I have only been stung by a jack jumper once in my life, and boy do they hurt. I should have elaborated the part where I said "get stung by them all the time". By that, I mean I always get stung by Myrmecia nigriceps, and I do not think they can cause severe reactions. I am not sure, I have no knowledge on their venom, but I should look into it though. Pretty sure all bull ants are capable to cause allergic reactions, but jack jumpers seem to be really powerful venom in comparison to its relatives.
Whoops, I did not realize that User:Burklemore1 is from Australia, but I should have done, because it is shown in one of the user boxes on his user page. I would rephrase what I said earlier to; "I am from the UK and I think that User:FunkMonk lives in Europe, so it is probably worthwhile for at least one additional reviewer to be from Australia". Any comments? Snowman (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read "Dealing with allergic reaction from jack jumper ant sting", simply because it was the first reference I looked at. Note that it says; "Professor Brown stresses that for most people, "the good news" is that they will experience only a mild reaction." (In non-sensitive individuals the venom causes localized swelling and redness.) Note that it also says that the emergency first aid treatment is "to lay a person down and elevate the legs if possible before calling for help." The ant venom appears to be immunogenic and is prone to cause anaphylaxis is about 3% of the population who are sensitive. Providing an Epipen (that is a trade name) would be standard management for those prone to anaphalaxis, and this can include a second dose. Anaphylaxis is a well studied medical emergency and the treatment is well known.Snowman (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venom immunotherapy is management which aims to reduce sensitivity of the venom in very sensitive individuals, so that when they are bitten is does not affect them so much. This will involve sufferers having a series of controlled exposures. This sort of treatment is well known in peanut allergies. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want that information added to the article, or?
I would like to see up-to-date information of this type of treatment with outcomes of the treatment as part the article. Relevance of IgE levels could be included. Snowman (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what would you recommend? I'll do all the working, but I wouldn't mind a suggestion.
I have difficulty interpreting what "Hmm" means. Could you explain what was meant a bit more? Snowman (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I meant, what would you recommend to be taken out of the treatment section and to be placed elsewhere in order to make it shorter? Which parts in the treatment section seem unnecessary, and should be placed elsewhere or under a new subsection?
I note that you have offered to do all the working (I presume this means that you would like to do most of the amendments to the article directly yourself with reference to comments in the GA review). I will rephrase what I see as a problem. I think that the treatment section could be reordered into a more logical sequence. What about dividing the treatment into treatment of an uncomplicated sting and treatment of a sting in a person with an allergy? The treatment for each can be given chronologically. The following should be included; first aid, adrenaline injections (first and subsequent), treatment of of anaphylaxis briefly (the principals are covered on other Wikipages), and desensitization treatment in detail, because it sounds that desensitization has been tailored to the situation of the ant's sting. The section includes the history of treatment, which probably should have its own sub-section or section. I also believe that there are a number or readability issues, which you might be able to improve on subsequent rewrites. There may be other logical ways of writing about the treatment. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a history section, and I was curious to know if you wanted anything else added to that section? Did you want the deaths between 1980-2000 added?
Note the other recommendations about reorganizing the treatment section that I put above, which has not been acted on. Moving something to the history section is only a minor part of the reorganization needed. Also, venom immunotherapy can be considered as prevention rather than treatment of a sting and would need separating into a separate paragraph or section. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the journal article; "Ant venom immunotherapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial" is a primary source. Is it wise to use a primary source for medial information? - not according to MedMOS. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Explain?
There are special criteria for references sourcing medical information on the Wiki; see MEDMOS. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Would you want the information removed if there is no possible way of finding a secondary source supporting the same information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burklemore1 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question. How do you know that the a single primary paper is not out-on-a-limb until it has been reviewed and collated with other information in a secondary paper. Note also that the primary paper I listed above is from 2003. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will scout around the Internet for some secondary sources supporting the same content. I'll link it to you first to see if the source can be used. This contains information based on placebo. Do you reckon we could get something out of this?
Issue has been solved. However, I will further look for the information still cited with this source and keep it up until then. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem!
Neither, so your recommendation to get someone who is familiar with chromosomes is good.
The claim that the ant has only one chromosome needs to be put in context. According to the table, it seems that the number of chromosomes can vary in this ant. I have no idea if this is common in ants or other insects. Nevertheless, this sounds interesting to me and I would be interesting to learn more about why and how this came about. Snowman (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To solve this issue, the chromosome numbers represent what can be found in "sibling species", or the Myrmecia pilosula species complex. Working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burklemore1 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Components include peptides found as heterodimers, homodimers and pilosulin 3. This has been solved.
I will view this. I have realised I have placed the citation incorrectly, so that is an error I have made, presumably unintentionally. I have now solved this issue.
A photo of the stinger or the ant stinging someone? Either one will be helpful, but I'm not sure what you exactly mean.
We do not have this sort of ant in the UK. I suspect that you will need to explain very basic things about the anatomy of the ant's stinging apparatus for readers outside Australia. Many people will be familiar with a wasp's sting, which moves out when the wasp is going to sting, and then it retracts. Is the ant stinging apparatus like this or not? Where is the venom gland or glands? Where is the venom stored? An image of the stinging apparatus would be interesting and it would guess that it would not be necessary for it to be shown stinging a victim. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to have any free image of the stinger, but there are a lot of diagrams by the end of the paper wherein the species was first described (old enough to be public domain), maybe there is something useful, but really hard to get an overview:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pdf is 256 pages long. Please provide some page numbers, to help me find the images. Snowman (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just scroll down to the bottom, page 221 and below. I'm not sure which of the images that show this species, but there are plate descriptions from page 205 and below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book has 216 numbered pages followed by plates, so how can there be a page 221? Snowman (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by the page numbers in the URL, should have explained, heh. Can't find an image of this species there myself. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there is not an image of the stinging apparatus in the book? Snowman (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, there are so many images, hard to see. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ants sting is exactly like a wasp, from what I have seen. From what I have read, bull ants are among the oldest genera of ants (origins can be traced back at least 100 million years ago). Perhaps that could explain why their stings are like one another. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did describe the ant himself, so it would have some necessity. As said, it is better off using that description (summarised) in the description section.
See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. Some people enhance articles with quotes of scarce old descriptions for extinct species where there are no photographs and where the illustrations may not be accurate, but that is entirely different to the situation here. Snowman (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that, thanks for explaining why it was a problem to include full quotes. I'll work on that.
Copy vio has been removed. It's fixed now.
Good question. I guess both words have the same definition. I will remove one word.
I recall that suburbia means different things is different parts of the world. Snowman (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the incidence section says that the ant is more common in rural areas. Perhaps its distribution and the habitats where it lives could be clearer. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its distribution and habitat in general or just particular parts (clearing up the rural content or urban)? Burklemore1 (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that most well worked species pages have an account of the extent of the range (or distribution) and details of the habitats that it prefers. Snowman (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be more common in rural areas as it seems they prefer isolation, or something a long those lines. Burklemore1 (talk) 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have got the impression that it is commoner in rural areas, but I have not got a good grasp of its range in Australia nor the exact areas where it is commonest. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there have been no reports or articles about their distribution in the Northern Territory. However, this distrubition map by an entomologist by the name of S. Shattuck was found. Shows the precise range of where they are most common or only found in terms of range, but as for preferred habitat, or how common they are in urban or rural areas, I will focus on that. I will also work on the distribution map in the infobox so readers will know where exactly they can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burklemore1 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Myrmecia croslandi looks exactly like the jack jumper ant. They also have the same jumping behaviour as a jack jumper, which will probably making things more difficult. Here is a photo that shows a worker M. Croslandi with some eggs. Did you want me to research if there are sources hinting about the confusion of these two ants when it comes to stinging?
Species pages generally include how to identify a species from another species that looks similar. In the case of this medically important ant, how does a victim know what sort of and he or she has been stung by? It is recommended to catch the ant and take it to the hospital to help the diagnostic process? Snowman (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge how a victim knows, or anything else. However, I saw an article and M. Croslandi were formerly known as M. Pilosula ants, which is what the jack jumper ant is, which further proves my point of how similar they are. Abstract is here. I think it also answers the question about "sibling species", which I have now found something about a species complex (directly referencing to sibling species, by the way). As for the ant being documented in Australian Aboriginal Culture, I haven't found any associations between the ant and Indigenous Australians. I will try and look for that though. I will have to look into this, you have brought up a very good question.
I have found that Australian Aborigines used a bush remedy to treat bull ant stings.
You could say additional references? I hope that isn't a sloppy reason. The "Further reading" section is also found in my first GA nomination article. Reviewer didn't seem to have a problem. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of the "Further reading" listed work on "The ants collected by the American Museum Congo Expedition". Congo is in Africa. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If some of the works in the "Further reading" section have highly relevant facts about the ant not already included in the article, then why is the work not used as a reference. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the works are accessible on the internet, can links be provided. If the works are not easily accessible, then should they be listed? Snowman (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has any of the reviewers or the nominator read any the works listed in the "Further reading" section? Snowman (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have particularly said that listed work in the first question, rather than questioning the whole content itself. It has been removed. I will look for links for you so readers can have access. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am questioning the need for other listed items and I have asked you if you have read them. I have also asked you if can provide links to any of the listed links, so that they will be easier to find. Snowman (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have asked for links for the listed work, and I also said I will do it. I will proceed to fix it. Also, the work you particularly spoke about (the Congo one), this work makes an appearance on its page on AntWeb, Combination in Myrmecia (Halmamyrmecia). Nonetheless I won't question that anymore. I have found links, except for Wheeler's 1933 published work. Did you want that removed? Burklemore1 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you happy that a 1933 work is listed as in the "Further reading" section despite it being difficult to find. Has anyone seen this work? Snowman (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: I will not be on Wikipedia for the upcoming days, from Thursday today until Monday. I will be on a nice trip and I will be busy with several other things. So, don't put on hold or what not if that seems long, but I will solve these issues. I am just adding comments to some issues and that's it for today. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take the time you need, I'm not for closing reviews early. FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am back. Didn't realise I would be gone for a few extra days, and sadly I won't be as active, but I WILL work on this article so it can pass. I hope you guys understand. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that user:Burklemore is an enthusiastic editor; nevertheless, I think that the medical sections will need a lot of work to get up to GA. Snowman (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there are many points still needed to be addressed (and perhaps extra information), I will open a note pad and list down unsolved issues that I need to work on. This is how I complete tasks I do outside of Wikipedia more efficiently and proves to be easier for myself if there are dozens of issues. I will gradually notify or make comment when these are done or I need a question with a particular issue. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be interested to see what Burklemore1 come up with. Snowman (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. My points have been solved, so I will pass this once Snowman is happy with the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have looked at the issues raised by User FunkMunk and I am not happy with the outcome with at least two of the amendments (see my comments above) regarding medical issues. Perhaps, User FunkMunk would look at my comments above and let me know what he thinks. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what I said will include your further comments after mine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you mean. My comments are my comments and your comments are your comments. How can my comments be included with yours? Do you mean that you agree with me or that you have no idea, that you will accept my comment as being reasonable, or what? Snowman (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It means as before that once you are happy with all the content, I will pass the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that User FunkMunk is putting undue expectations on me to pass the article, because User FunkMunk says; "..., so I will pass this once Snowman is happy with the article". Perhaps, a more open-minded approach would be to "await my opinion before User FunkMunk decides to pass or fail the article. From my point of view, I think that there is some doubt that the article will reach GA at this nomination. I will wait to see how the article develops for a while longer, but I think that the likely outcome is that I will suggest to User FunkMunk that the article should fail. Snowman (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I prefer leaving reviews open indefinitely instead of closing them only for them to be nominated again. I think it is too bureaucratic, and only creates too many unnavigable subpages. So what I mean is that I will leave this open for as long as it takes to fix all issues. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, an article can not have a peer review while it is a GA candidate, so leaving this peer review open indefinitely would mean that it would never have the peer review it may need to help to towards GA status. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally speaking, I think that the link to "article milestones" on the talk page makes GA subpages easy to navigate. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, User FunkMunk has considered my recent comments about the issues that he raised and he is no longer happy with all of the amendments made to his comments. User FunkMunk said "My points have been solved, ...", but I presume that this no longer applies. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants a peer review, we could of course close this. But I find it highly unlikely that this will happen, furthermore, anyone can comment on this current GA review, which makes a separate peer review redundant. And as I said earlier, if there is anything you want to add to my comments, feel free to do so, I will not object if I agree with them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying you have doubts these issues can be fixed? Burklemore1 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User FunkMonk invited me to have a look at this article on my talk page with this edit and the edit summary "Second opinion?". I am forming my opinion about this page; nevertheless, it in not my intention to work on this article until I am happy with it. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reaction is local swelling and reddening, and fever, followed by formation of a blister." An in-line reference is absent form this line, but there are three in-line references after this for three sentences (ie [61][62][63]). This cluster of refs makes verifiability difficult, because I am having to check all three just to check the source of this one line. Is a blister inevitable as the Wiki article would suggest? This inline ref 61 says that; "in some cases blisters will form" (not specifically about the jack jumper ant sting). Please provide more precise verifiability, so that I can check this part of the article on blisters. Also, I would be interested to see the source for "fever" in the context of an uncomplicated sting. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Immunotherapy should be recommended to adults and children who have experienced moderate to severe allergic reactions, rather than the immunotherapy being prescribed to children who have only had skin reactions, although every case should be assessed beforehand.[81]". I have looked at the source and I think that this actually stems from recommendation by a USA organization about USA insects, so it does not apply to the JJA. I think that this entire line needs deleting and possibly replaced with something relevant to the JJA. Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whole line deleted. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Below is a table showing chromosome numbers from different jack jumper ant colonies, or other ants of the Myrmecia pilosula species complex:[6]". It would be useful to know which are the JJAs in the table and which are other members of the Myrmecia pilosual complex. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed table. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table of chromosomes shows that only one colony of ants had one pair of chromsomes and this was in Australian Capital Territory. The paper that shows the table says that the one-pair-of-chromsome ants are morphologically distinct ants. Which member (or memebers) of the species complex has one chromosome. Snowman (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed table. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest that User Burklemore writes better edit summaries, so that it is easier to follow what he is doing. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crosland, M.W.J.; Crozier, R.H.; Imai, H.T. (1987). Evidence for several sibling biological species centred on Myrmecia pilosula (F. Smith) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)". The external link to the paper is a dead link on my system. I have found a similar work at J. Aust. ent. Soc., 1988, 27: 13-14. The table in the article looks as if it could have been copied from this paper. Is it copyvio? Snowman (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was the point of using the ref mainly, but I have removed it to avoid violations.
  • The table of ants does not feature any ants from Tasmania. Why is this? Does the table give the right impression without Tasmanian ants. Could the article include studies of ant chromosomes in Tasmania, if there has been any. Snowman (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read above. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression on the medical aspects. I think that the GA reviewer did the right think to ask me to have a look; however, I think that there is a massive amount of work to do here owing to multiple emphasis issues, ambiguities, and many readability problems. Note that the nominator made a request to do all of the working with guidance from reviewers. At this juncture, my recommendation is that the article should fail GA, partly because I do not see much progress in the medical aspects of the article. I note the the GA reviewer has said that he would leave this article open for as long at it takes. If this GA is not closed as a fail, may I recommend to the nominator that a better route would be for him to withdraw his GA nomination and then seek expert assistance possibly from a request to WP Medicine or at a peer review (or both), and then possibly re-nominate for GA status. I understand that there is a strong recommendation for nominators of GA articles to co-opt expert assistance to help writing of complex aspects of articles that the nominator is not familiar with prior to nomination, so I think that this GA nomination arrived at the wrong time in this article's history. Snowman (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a request for further help would be fully possible without having to renominate this first. Also remember, GA criteria are much less strict than FA criteria, but I do think we should hold this one up to slightly higher standards, due to its medical importance. Could be fatal if people come here for help and misunderstand the article, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the clinical aspects, I would think that an expert on ant chromosomes could offer some useful assistance. I have been busy in real life recently and I would like to prioritize my Wiki editing elsewhere, so I must move on. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

Responding to the call for a third opinion. Although I am not an experienced GA reviewer, I don't think this is yet ready for GA status, mainly due to criteria 1: Well-written: the prose is clear and concise... and the spelling and grammar are correct

  • The prose is disjunct, repetitive, and at times confusing and contradictory. Sentences in a paragraph should flow logically from one to the other, rather than a "This is a fact. This is another fact" style.
  • Snippets and factoids from journal articles seem presented without context, as if the reader will know what they mean: e.g. "observed heterozygosities ranged from 0.5625 to 0.9375, and from 0.4863 to 08711, respectively". Great, so what?? Rather than regurgitate numbers or the methodology of a study ("using alloenalozymes"), the findings should be simply stated in context, "e.g. genetic variation was higher (or lower) than others because of X".
  • The facts are more important than the studies that produced them. It is often unnecessary to describe experimental setup, sample size or even names of people doing studies. Rather than e.g. "One study found X ranged from 354 and 600 while another study found X between 421 and 749" it is perfectly acceptable, to concisely synthesize such facts such as "X ranges from about 350 to 750." Too many precise numbers make this appear more like a journal article and less like a general encyclopedic article.
  • The chromosome section especially lacks clarity, and appears contradictory. Does the species have a single pair or multiple pairs of chromosomes? It is excessive to list every known number of chromosomes.
  • I've not really read much of the "Interaction with humans" section, but from the discussion above it looks like there are issues to resolve there.
  • I can help with some grammar issues and style improvements, but that alone will not bring clarity. One way to improve the clarity and conciseness would be to simply delete problematic passages. If the editor(s) who added such content can't clearly explain them, then they're better off omitted until someone more savvy with genetics or toxicology comes along. There are plenty of GA articles that don't mention chromosomes or heterozygosities. Sometimes less is more.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I agree with your points. My main problem with this article was that it is quite messily written. I'd recommend submitting it for copy editing.[5] FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that copy-editing work at this juncture will not be successful, because problems in the factual content, text-source consistency, and ambiguities can not be corrected without referring to the literature. I think that the priority would be to correct the science and then polish the language. I note that copy-editing tasks to date have not corrected many of the problems that I have listed in my review above. It looks to me that recent copy-editing has caused a readability issue in the introduction; new text in the introduction says; "The venom causes about 90% of Australian ant allergies, and in endemic areas, up to 3% of the human population have this problem.". Here the use of "this problem" seems vague to me. The previous text made it clearer that up to 3% of the population in endemic rural areas have been sensitized specially to JJA venom. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have fixed the regression in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also need the nominator to be present, at this point, absence could result in the article failing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the apparent absence of the nominator, I have made a few edits mainly to reorganize the treatment section. However, there a vast amount of work that still needs doing and I think that the article remains well below GA level. Snowman (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping Burklemore1, and see if he responds within a week. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that the genetics section can simply be deleted, because of the apparent interest in some populations of the ant with one pair of chromosomes. Such deletions could be omission of relevant material. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Request

[edit]

I have slapped myself (not really) and have come to a conclusion that the article is indeed far from ready to be able to become a GA article. May I request that the reviewer cancel this GA nomination for the following reason:

  • As said, the article isn't ready
  • I wish to send a copy edit request on this article so spelling and grammar problems can be almost entirely taken care of

And I will go through the process of the peer review I have heard about. Also, I will fix the problems that I have still not addressed yet during the time it is no longer a GA nominated article. One more thing, is there a possible way someone can deliver a fresh list of all unaddressed issues here that I have not fixed? The amount of content on this GA review page is a bit too much and a list with just the particular content I want will be splendid and much easier to organise.

Finally, I take note that the interaction with human part has been significantly reorganised, but how many issues still need to be focused on in that section? Can you also elaborate on that term thank you. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will fail it then. But I will wait a bit to see if second and third opinion providers have anything to add. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the circumstances of a nominator withdrawing the nomination, I think that the nomination would be withdrawn and so it would not be a fail. I think that you [the nominator] are doing the right thing by withdrawing the nomination, partly because it seems to be clear that you are struggling with the complex aspects of the article. I think that it would be better to adhere to the recommended process of co-opting expert help prior to GA nomination to bring the nominated article up to standard for when it is nominated. I think that the GA reviewers comments above should give you some ideas of how to improve the article (without someone clarifying what issues above have not been fixed). I admire your determination to improve this article, but I would say that it is difficult to write holistically about medicine without experience of some sort in the relevant topic. If I was working on the medical section, I would read around the topic to get a feel of the current state of the science, I suspect that the article would need to include some of the scientific advances in JJA venom desensitization and changes in attitudes to JJA venom desensitization. There may be other recent advances and the section may need bringing up to date. Of course, the sources should all be consistent with MedMOS. When I understood the topic and felt competent with it, I would rewrite the medical section checking every fact in the medical section in the sources. However; given the time pressures on me and because JJ Ants are not found in the UK, it would not be particularly personally fruitful for me to work on this topic any further. I would say that medicine has its own language and styles of writing, and I would say it would take an expert to write in such a way that it true to the science and easy to read. Note that I attempted to co-opt Australian reviewers, who may regard this topic as an everyday problem, but none arrived here, alas. I am glad that you realize the weaknesses of this article, which shows more insight than some editors who have a little knowledge and are blind to their mistakes. Actually, I think that it is difficult being an expert editor on the Wiki, because amateur editors do not tend to have a full understating and I get fed up giving tutorials in explanation, and it can take only one stubborn editor or two editors to disagree with me to make it very difficult for me get anything amended (and corrected). I hope that this has been a learning experience for the nominator. I hope that User FunkMunk will guide you through peer review and other ways of co-opting help. User FundMunk could make a good tutor for you to help you to learn about polishing articles, but it may be a role that he is not used to, as far as I am aware. I am fairly sure that the medical and genetic content needs extensive content amendments prior to general copy-editing. If I have enough free time, would be happy to give opinions on other articles with content relevant to medicine. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can surely help out when needed. But yeah, peer review and copy edit would be a good start. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am eager that the nominator should keep to the recommended process of recruiting help prior to GA nomination. Peer review might be helpful or it might be a bit disappointing for this complex science article. It might be worth seeing if anyone can get some specialist editors interested. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I am also still studying in school, though I graduate in less than a month, that also did not help, but I thank you for pointing out what was wrong, I didn't actually realise how far off GA status was, but I did learn a few things out of this. But yes, you are right, User Snowman, I did have a lot of struggles, but needless to say, the article itself has been improved, but it wasn't simply enough for it to get GA nomination status. I will point out again I may re-nominate this in the future, only after a copy edit is done and I will try my best to fix all the problems that have not been addressed, so it's much easier for the next reviewer to deal with less problems, or perhaps even yourselves to see how much has been changed. I had no disagreements (I think) with any reviewer here also, very relevant points and other information I missed. Nonetheless, the article is in a better state, but I will try and get it improved much further. Anyway though, thanks to you both for not growing grey hairs from all the problems in this article. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_jumper_ant/GA1&oldid=631735289"