- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): Burklemore1 (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a common ant that is found throughout Australia, which was recently promoted to GA status in June 2015. I note that this is my first FA nomination, so I may not be completely familiar with the FA process. However, I have had a discussion prior to this nomination about FA and I was given useful feedback on the article, of which I have performed a couple of edits to further improve the article. I look forward to my first full on experience with this. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief comment: Hi, Burklemore, this looks like a neat and tidy job which our biology readers will enjoy. I'm sure that a knowledgeable reviewer will soon pick it up; meanwhile, may I point out that the sentence: "If a nest is attacked, however, hundreds of ants will attack in force" is at present without a reference, and one should be added. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Brian, thanks for the comment. I'll look around for a source which supports this claim now. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- During my vigorous search, I was unable to track a source. I have decided to remove the sentence.
In the para 2 of the lead, you've mentioned workers and soldiers in sentence 1, and then major workers (also known as soldiers), and minor workers in sentence 2. It would be good to somehow merge these. I had to pause to wonder whether we were talking 3 groups - soldiers, major workers and minor workers - or 2....
- I have worked on the sentence and merged the two. Since soldiers and major workers are exactly the same, is it necessary to even mention that they are commonly known as soldiers to the general public? Burklemore1 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - not sure..possibly, I think many readers who know a little about ants would expect some clarification of soldiers as they might be familiar with them....from Antz for instance...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it may be relevant to keep the clarification so readers know what major workers are. Some readers would probably assume that there are two worker castes and a separate soldier caste instead. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banded sugar ants can be found at elevations ranging from 170 – 853 metres - looks funny, I'd align it with source better by saying, "Banded sugar ants have been recorded from elevations ranging from 170 to 853 metres"
Done.
The two sets of units at the end of Distribution and habitat need imperial conversions
Done.
Sugar ants may also invade meat ant nests if they are overshadowed, since the health of the colony may deteriorate - this leaves me a little mystified, any elaboration on the shade and health would be good here.
I have read the source I cited but it doesn't go into great depth, though it does cite two sources which discuss this topic. I'll track them down now so I can see what I can use from them.
- Added some detail. I have also added an extra sentence of what meat ants do when the colony is declining and what the banded sugar ants do when they invade. The source doesn't explicitly mention anything about their health unfortunately.
Support Otherwise looking pretty tight and comprehensive...I think we're in striking distance of FA status....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments from jonkerz - Very well-written and well-referenced article. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the 'Life cycle and reproduction' section and the terminology around poly-/mono-/-gyne/-gynous/-andry. Here is my understanding:
- monogyne (adj. monogynous) = nest contains a single queen
- polygyne (adj. polygynous) = multiple queens in the same nest
- monandry = queen/queens mate only once
- polyandry = queen/queens mate more than once
- From the article (the bolded numbers are mine): "1) Although most banded sugar ant colonies are monogynous, some have been found to be polygynous, 2) where the queens will only mate with a single male ... 3) Banded sugar ant colonies do not have multiple queens, and will only have a single queen."
- To me this reads like: "1) Most colonies have a single queen (they are monogynous), but some have multiple queens (they are polygynous), 2) polygyny means that the queens will only mate with a single male ... 3) Banded sugar ant colonies are not polygynous (they never have more than one queen), they are monogynous (always a single queen)."
2) could also be interpreted as "in the nests with multiple queens, the queens will only mate with a single male", but I could not find this in the reference (the Fraser article however states that queens in monogynous colonies mate once). Can you see my confusion? jonkerz ♠talk 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I understand. I may have misinterpreted the text and meanings (these terms do get quite confusing). I read the source again and *hopefully* corrected and fixed up the issue you have raised. Can you double check? Burklemore1 (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. The issue has been resolved. jonkerz ♠talk 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something is off in the listing of subspecies: "Several subspecies have been described: C. consobrinus perthianus, C. nigriceps, C. nigriceps obniger and C. nigriceps lividipes." The second is a species, the third and fourth are subspecies of C. nigriceps.
C. nigriceps was classified as a subspecies by Wheeler in 1933, but Clark raised it as a full species a year later. This is the same case with the subspecies of C. nigriceps. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a list of taxa that was once classified as subspecies of the banded sugar ant, which makes sense, why is Camponotus consobrinus perthianus (a junior synonym of Camponotus nigriceps) listed using its original name, Camponotus nigriceps obniger (a junior synonym of Camponotus consobrinus) listed neither under its original or current name, and C. nigriceps (that was once classified as a subspecies) listed under its currently valid name? jonkerz ♠talk 14:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, but I am a bit confused with the question. If I recall Camponotus consobrinus perthianus has always been the only name for this taxon, and this is the same for Camponotus nigriceps obniger. C. nigriceps was also listed under its current name when Wheeler classified it as a subspecies. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, there are currently no valid subspecies of Camponotus consobrinus -- they have all been synonymized, elevated to species or reclassified as subspecies of another species. In a list of subspecies, I'd expect to find only subspecies-names, or at least names used in a consistent manner:
A) the name that was used when taxon was classified as a valid subspecies of the banded sugar antB) the current name of what once a subspecies of the banded sugar ant
It doesn't really make sense to use:
C) other (neither a currently valid name nor the name that once was a valid subspecies of the banded sugar ant)
The current list is a mix of all these. From first to last: A, B, C, B, while I think the list should read: A, A, A, A. Agree?
"C. nigriceps was later revived as a full species in 1934", a taxa that was already at the rank of species was elevated to a species? "C. nigriceps lividipes was classified as a subspecies of [C. nigriceps].", but doesn't the trinomial name indicate exactly this already? To me this sounds like "the C. nigriceps subspecies C. nigriceps lividipes was reclassified as a subspecies of C. nigriceps, now given the name C. nigriceps lividipes". Perhaps someone watching this review can take a stab at this, just to make sure I'm not alone in this. jonkerz ♠talk 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, C. nigriceps lividipes went through the following:
- 1887: Subspecies of C. nigriceps
- 1933: Camponotus consobrinus subsp. lividipes Subspecies of C. consobrinus
- 1934: Synonym of C. consobrinus
- 1985: Subspecies of C. nigriceps Taylor & Brown, D.R. 1985
Well... that is some news. I may have gotten that wrong in the article which will need changing (thank you for pointing this out, btw). For C. nigriceps:
- 1933: Camponotus consobrinus subsp. nigriceps (Smith) Subspecies of C. consobrinus
Does that answer your question by any chance? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be precise, would it make sense by incorporating those names instead of the original taxons, a long with a slight corrected update? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So what I am seeing, is that C. nigriceps lividipes should be C. consobrinus lividipes and C. nigriceps should be C. consobrinus nigriceps. Camponotus consobrinus var. perthianus was erected by Wheeler in 1933 in the same paper where the other taxons were classified as subspecies of C. consobrinus, though I think he treated it as a variant, not a subspecies. Camponotus nigriceps obniger was also treated as a variety as Camponotus consobrinus var. obniger.
Would this sentence make more sense:
"In 1933, American entomologist William Morton Wheeler described some subspecies and variants of the banded sugar ant. These subspecies were C. consobrinus lividipes and C. consobrinus nigriceps, while the variants were C. consobrinus var. obniger and C. consobrinus var. perthianus. Some of these classifications were short lived; C. consobrinus nigriceps was later revived as a full species in 1934 as C. nigriceps, while C. consobrinus lividipes was synonymised with C. consobrinus. C. consobrinus lividipes was treated as a subspecies for C. nigriceps in 1985, now known as C. nigriceps lividipes. In 1996 C. consobrinus perthianus was synonymised with C. nigriceps, and C. consobrinus var. obniger was synonymised with C. consobrinus."
- Much better! This is what I was looking for. I consider this issue to be resolved. jonkerz ♠talk 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I have incorporated the info (please correct anything if there is any issue with the prose.) Burklemore1 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Banded sugar ants are polymorphic and sexually dimorphic, meaning that colonies have two types of workers, minor workers and major workers that have different size ranges." Sexual dimorphism = minor workers and major workers? For someone new to ants, this could be misinterpreted as "minor workers = female, major workers = male". Perhaps it is easier to leave out the part about sexual dimorphism since all ants are sexually dimorphic. jonkerz ♠talk 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "sexual dimorphism".
In general this article is looking good. A few points that struck me: -
"Workers prey on insects, killing them with a spray of formic acid. It is preyed upon by other ants, echidnas, and birds."- You can't say "it" when the previous sentence had a plural subject.
Changed.
"The brood of this species were also consumed by Australian Aborigines." - I would argue that "brood" is a singular word.
I realised that in the "interaction with humans section" that it says eggs instead of brood. Would that mark this issue as solved if I change it to that?
- I just meant that I would have said "The brood of this species was also consumed by Australian Aborigines." Also, I think brood means young, in this case larvae I presume, rather than eggs, which I would have thought were a bit small to be worth eating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the source, and apparently the eggs of this species and several other ants were delicacies. I'm not sure if the author counted the larvae as eggs, because the eggs as you just said would be too small to be worth eating. Burklemore1 (talk 18:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll actually just change it to brood instead, it would mean the same thing and they most likely did consume larvae anyway. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The specific name is derived from the Latin word consobrina, meaning "cousin".[9] This is in reference to its similarity with the species C. herculeanus.[8]" - This seems like a non-sequitur to me.
Is this non-sequitur for only the two sentences?
First you state "Banded sugar ants come in a variety of colours," then you go on to describe the colouring in great detail. Can both these statements be correct?
Fixed up.
"the amount of malpighian tubules known based on two workers is 21." -This sentence is confusing, and anyway you mean "number" rather than "amount".
Changed to amount. What is your suggestion to make the sentence not confusing?
- Your changes to the sentence are satisfactory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"They are found in urban areas, ..." - The previous part of the paragraph has been in the singular so you can't just say "they".
Changed.
"... by the similar looking Camponotus nigriceps" - this is duplication of information in the previous paragraph.
Chopped it down a bit.
"170 to 853 metres (557 to 2,798 ft)" this conversion factor is too precise.
This conflicts with other editors suggestions, as does the other conversation suggestion. A discussion may need to take place and see what consensus can be reached.
- Took this the wrong way, changed.
"Nests are regularly found in a variety of sites" - Why does this happen regularly?
Removed "regularly".
" Instead, nests have vertical shafts at their entrance, which is smooth in appearance." - This sentence is confusing.
Rewritten.
"20 to 30 millimetres (0.79 to 1.18 in) in length with an arched roof that is 10 millimetres (0.39 in)." - More conversion figures that are much too precise.
See above.
- "20 to 30 millimetres" is definitely an approximation, so "0.8 to 1.2 inches" is needed here in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I must have misinterpreted your comment. If this is the case, is it best to round the other conversion as 560 to 2,800 ft?
- Yes, that is what I suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"but are more active during the night. These ants are more active during the warmer seasons, especially summer." - Too many "more actives".
Changed.
- "Banded sugar ants may also invade meat ant nests if they are encroached by trees or other shade, since the health of the colony may deteriorate." - neads clarification.
@Cwmhiraeth: I have rewritten the sentence and further explained that the colony deteriorates from overshadowing. Is that what you were asking for, or is there anything else that needs addressing? Also, I have some comments in relation to the interaction with humans, adoption of larvae and the etymology. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... a symbiotic relationship between them, but the results showed that these banded sugar ants attacked the leafhoppers, suggesting that there was no symbiotic relationship between the two." - Needs to be differently expressed to avoid repetition of "symbiotic relationship".
Done.
"Workers retrieve the honeydew from the aphid by excreting it through the anus of the aphid." No!
Changed, I guess?
"as the ants protect the aphid from predation and the aphid provides a nutritious liquid to the ants." - Sounds like multiple ants badgering away at one poor aphid.
Changed to aphid*s* since it would refer to many of them instead of a single aphid.
"Banded sugar ants are known to "rob" Hemiptera food sources consumed by meat ants at night, where meat ants will feed on these sources during the day." - This sentence is confusing.
Done.
Be consistent on whether you refer to Blindsnakes or Blind snakes.
Done.
"Nematodes are a parasite to banded sugar ant larvae, as several mermithergate larvae were described." - This needs more explanation for the uninitiated.
Expanded.
"... where the alates will begin to swarm" - This sentence is confusing as you have not previously been talking about a location.
Changed.
- "The black carpenter ant (Camponotus pennsylvanicus) is known to adopt larvae and pupae from banded sugar ant colonies." - This needs more explanation for the uninitiated.
There isn't much more that can be expanded with this, unless we can explain the fact that other related Camponotus brood are adopted. See page 203, first paragraph top left.
- I know that in some ant species, ants raid other ant colonies and steal the brood, which then serves as slaves to the captors. Does this happen to the banded sugar ant?
- No sources suggest that either these ants raid colonies or their get colonies get raided (other than invading meat ant colonies, but they do not take any brood). Myrmecia nigrocincta is the only plausible ant I can think of that *may* enslave banded sugar ants based on their geographical distribution, but there has been zero studies if this happens. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of the "Life cycle and reproduction" section is confusing. If females only mate once, how are there many patrilines, and what are these "distinct developmental pathways"?
I have removed most of the paragraph as a) it is way too confusing for myself to even understand, and b), I just realised that paragraph was most likely not talking about the banded sugar ant.
The "Interaction with humans" section is a bit disjointed.
May you extend your reason as to how it is a bit disjointed, and what is your suggestion to fix whatever is wrong? Content removal is not an option if there is any suggestion of that.
- Read the paragraph through. It consists of about seven sentences which are bald statements, factoids about the ants. It is not ordered in a logical fashion and does not flow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have reduced the amount of sentences a bit, but I'll be doing further improvements to the section shortly.
- Rewritten, but feel free to correct any possible mistakes I may have left.
- That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments! I must note however I will be busy with irl things for the upcoming days so my responses may be slower than usual. This won't mean I'll completely forget about the FAC, but I just won't be able to address your comments (and other comments in the future) in a quick manner. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I have addressed, or attempted to address, most of the points you have raised. I may need a comment in regards to the etymology part and/or to others parts that you feel may need a bit more work before you are happy with the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy with the improvements made to the article and now Support it on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the thorough review! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
- All images are licensed under CC or GFDL with sufficient source and author information - OK.
- Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image check! Burklemore1 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: I haven't abandoned this nomination or article, I have just been waiting for someone to conduct a source review. Thanks in advance, Burklemore1 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review and spot check[edit]
Coming. Going off this revision so ref numbers don't get mixed up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN 7 needs publisher, date, author (if available)
- I just realised reference no. 7 is actually a book, so I have made some changes (provided more details + ISBN). Thank you for initiating the source review by the way. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- material from FN 13 is faithful to source.
- material from FN 9 is faithful to source.
- Earwig's top score was 39.8% (not bad), but very slow. Will re-check later.
More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you said material is faithful to source, does that mean the statement on the article it's closely paraphrased to the original source? Sorry, a bit noobish with this type of stuff. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, meant to add I didn't see paraphrasing either. So all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so that's a good thing then. Okay, makes sense now. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- material from FN 60 is faithful to source and unnecessary paraphrasing avoided. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
material from FN 11 and 12 suggests 7-12 mm is length range for this species - FN 12 talks of genus going to 15 mm length (though page is about species (??)). I can't see where either ref calls them large compared with other ants.
- The CSIRO source does confuse me a bit. I'm not sure if the the size is discussing the average size of the length of Camponotus ants or the species itself, but some Camponotus can reach 30 millimetres or more. Even nanitic workers (very first generation of workers born in a colony) are larger than 2.5 mm as the page suggests. I'm going to use the Australian Museum source instead, since it gives a size range of 5 - 15 millimetres and says they are large ants. I have also moved the Queensland Museum source to the sentence "Nests are found in a variety of sites, including holes in wood, roots of plants, twigs of trees and shrubs, between rocks, in the soil, and under paving stones." Some of the things said there are included in the source. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok all good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentences 2 and 3 cited to FN 12 are faithful to source material without unnecessary paraphrasing.
Ok, spot check mostly in order apart from one query above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet, thank you (again) for initiating the review! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.