Talk:Novomessor ensifer

Novomessor ensifer 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: December 13, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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).

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will begin shortly.

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.	~~Taxonomy paragraph convoluted - condense to reduce that.~~
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.

Note: If I do not mention a paragraph, then that means that it is perfectly fine and needs little or no improvement.

Behavior paragraph

Pretty good so far, but I would like you to change scientific-derived names into common names (example: collembollans -> springtail arthropods). This applies for the whole article. Great detail! Gug01 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this also applied to the plants and trees mentioned in "distribution and habitat" where possible? Since you said it applies for the whole article and all. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Gug01 (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy paragraph

Pretty good but needs to be condensed. Gug01 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed, please double check.

Good work. Gug01 (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description paragraph

Second and fourth paragraphs are too small. Gug01 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y I have merged the small paragraphs with others. Is it ok now? I thought it'd be appropriate to just merge them rather than have small clunky paragraphs.

First paragraph is a bit too big, maybe split it up. Gug01 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done.

Good work. I like how you merged the paragraphs. Gug01 (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other

There are too few images. Is it possible to find another image of the ant? Gug01 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some on Flickr, but none of them can be redistributed. If I recall images aren't mandatory for a GA nominee though, but it's a shame there are virtually no free images of it in its natural habitat.

Actually I don't think there are any on Flickr at all. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although images are not mandatory, additional images would have, in my opinion, enhanced the article. I gather from what you have said that there are very few or no images of the ant. In that case, then just forget about the images. Gug01 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree on that, though it's disappointing that insects in general receive little attention and those that do take photographs never release them or put strict licensing on them. Thanks for reviewing, I'll work on the plants and such even after if you have promoted the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]