Talk:Ochetellus

Expand

Going to expand the genus Ochetellus article and try to get it to good article status. I'll also work on the well known species Ochetellus glaber. Quite an ant I have been fond with since I was a little kid, and I was quite disappointed with how small its article is. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have now updated the article and will proof read it. After, I will nominate for GA. I will reassess this as C class. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes for the reviewer:

• No info is available about the exact time of nuptial flight, life cycle (other than life starting as an egg and such)
• There is lack of info on predators. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I propose to take on this review and will be looking at the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time on this. I have left some notes in the articles talk page incase you haven't read them yet, just to answer some possible questions you may ask. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

First reading

On first inspection this article seems reasonably well written and seems to adequately cover the topic. Some points that occurred to me:

• The first sentence seems to imply that Shattuck described the subfamily in 1992 rather than him describing the genus.

Rewritten.

• The second sentence has a stray word near the beginning, and I am not sure about using "will" when discussing the ants' dimensions. "Will" puts the sentence into the future and implies the ants will grow.

"Will" has now been removed from description and lead sections.

• I will take another look at the lead section later, when I can better judge whether it summarises the rest of the article.

No problem.

• What do you mean by "Species apart of this genus ..."?

Rewritten.

• The first two sentences of the "Description" section seem to contradict each other.

Rewritten.

• "The queens are by far the largest in the genus;" - Perhaps you mean "The largest ants in the genus are the queens;".

Reworded.

• "While these ants were once apart of the genus Iridomyrmex" - I don't think this use of "apart" is good English grammar.

Reworded.

• "... show the difference between the two genera." - Perhaps "distinguish between the two genera."

Reworded.

• The second paragraph of "Description" was a mixture of singulars and plurals and I have rewritten it.

Thank you, I should have read it through a couple of times.

• The word "endemic" means " being unique to a defined geographic location". So if you talk about this genus being endemic to Australia and endemic to Asia, this is a contradiction. If you mean that some species are endemic to Australia and others to different parts of Asia, you will have to be more specific. Otherwise use the expression "native to" or somesuch.

Changed.

• What are the unique habitat preferences of Ochetellus flavipes?

Oops, I may have made a mistake with this sentence. I believe I was meant to state its unique nesting habits. I have rewritten the sentence.

• • I will stop there for the moment. More later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the final section, there is a lot of information and plenty of references but the arrangement seems rather haphazard. For example, you state "... feed on arthropods, fluids and sweets." However the source states that they mainly feed on arthropods, but when they forage into houses, they seem to like fluids (sweet drinks I imagine) and sweets. But these latter two items are not really a natural part of their diet. Nor are tuna and peanut butter for that matter!

Did a slight rewrite with the sentence, it should be correct now. I'll keep the fluids and sweets in the sentence as I have mentioned they prefer to consume these when they forage into homes, but I have removed tuna and peanut butter.

• In the final paragraph you talk of them attending mealybugs so my guess is that part of their diet, like many other ants, is honeydew, and this would be more worth mentioning than the human foodstuffs you mention elsewhere.

Good point, I'll add that in instead. Will remove tuna and peanut butter.

• The predators part could go in a separate paragraph after you have finished with the ants' behaviour. The information here is muddled. When you are talking about the rate and number of ants consumed, presumably you are referring to consumption by the thorny devil? And it is worth mentioning that it is a lizard, for your non-Australian readers.

Yes I am. I have clarified that it is a lizard so non-Australian readers can understand and have now split the predators part into its own paragraph. How I wrote it looks a little odd, but it does the job.

• Do birds eat these ants? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen my chickens and other birds eat them if I lift up the rocks they would nest under, but I haven't been able to find a source that actually states this. I'll look around though and see what I can find. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Unable to find a source that states they get eaten by birds, unless it is common sense to add them in. Well.. I did find a source but it was unreliable.

• I have done some copyediting. If I have inadvertently changed the meaning anywhere, you had better make further alterations.

I'll go have a look.

I have viewed your edits and I did not notice any changed meanings.

• I think it would be more logical if the last paragraph in "Behaviour and ecology" was moved to become paragraph 3 of that section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved.

GA criteria

• The article is reasonably well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose, grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• The images are relevant, have suitable captions and are properly licensed.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)