Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ant

I'm nominating this article for featured article because of its GA status for a while, current stability in spite of high traffic and meeting the FAC criteria. Many people have helped this article and it has developed over a much longer time span than many other major animal group articles. This article has had a lot of editing for factual accuracy and style by a number of other editors notably Doug Yanega, User:Stemonitis and more recently User:GameKeeper. Shyamal (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• There are unformatted references. Ensure all references using URLs have title, URL, publisher, and accessdate fields filled out.
  • Done
• A ton of page ranges need en dashes per WP:DASH, including "549-563", "p23-24" (which should actually be "pp. 23-24"), and "10977-10979"
  • Done
• American and British spelling mixed together; examples: "behaviour", "metre", "travelled"
  • Fixed
• There are a number of short paragraphs, and some are even uncited.
• Redundancies abound; words that are common in this article include "many" and "some", which are used sometimes in a "Many... Some... Many..." pattern.

Gary King (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Have fixed the ndash issues and the URL cites. Some broken external links need fixing as well. The last issue of "many-some-many" repetition is perhaps unavoidable in the summarization of a large insect group. But maybe others will be able to fix some of these issues. Shyamal (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I've gone through and corrected a few remaining infelicities. "exarate" needs explanation. An interesting and comprehensive read jimfbleak (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Exarate - jargon removed.

Comment. I don't think you need to list all the places ants aren't found in the lead; it seems an inappropriate level of detail. Also, "they may constitute up to 15–25%" is phrased overly cautiously to the point where it loses meaning. The lead could probably be expanded: it's a decent-length article and there's plenty that could be said. Trebor (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Modified the bit on absence, new section on distribution covers it. Can someone volunteer for the lead improvement ? Shyamal (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Expand the lead to fully summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the article lacks a taxonomy section. I would make one, with the evolution bit a subsection of it. Within it, it needs to have approx number of species and notable subfamiles/genera/maybe some very notable spp. not mentioned elsewhere. I would also place diversity section into it as well. Also, did we decide to do brit or US english? More to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the last GA upgrade was done with a BrE leaning with User:Stemonitis and me. Thanks for the suggestions, will try and add some bits on the family wise diversity. Shyamal (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Needs etymology of ant. Also some orign of formicidae in taxonomy.
  • Done

• Ants in culture needs some refs.
  • Some seem problematic - especially the computer games and cartoon movies - in one sense they seem to be references in themselves

Will help out more later. I can't add much on taxonomy as not my area but will try to do what I can. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 2 "Oster, GF & Wilson E O "Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects" is lacking a page number. Also, either use periods between the initials or don't, but don't mix the styles.
  • Done (specific page not cited by editor)

A reason we aren't citing a page number here? If the book is pretty big, for WP:V we need to be able to easily find the specific information you're citing. Page numbers help a lot with that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the pages for this ref. GameKeeper (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 11 Philip Thomas Pest Ants in Hawaii is lacking a last access date.
  • Done
• Current ref 14 D. Agosti, J. D. Majer, L. E. Alonso is lacking a page number
  • whole book covers matter of ants as indicators
• Current ref 13 Donat Agosti "Antbase" is lacking last access date, and publisher
  • Done
• Current ref 15 Hymenoptera name server is lacking last access date
  • Done
• Current ref 54 Taylor R. W. The Australian workerless inquiline ant ... has a formatting glitch with the url.
  • Done
• Current ref 80 David R. Downes and Sarah A. Laird Innovative mechanisms for ... is lacking publisher and last access date
  • Done

Still missing last access date. Yes, I know it's a journal, but given that you're giving a convience link, it is nice to give a last access date in case the link goes dead, so folks can attempt to replace the link with something from an archive. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - also found a better ref but one that is available only to Springer subscribers. Shyamal (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 81 Hormigas culonas is lacking a publisher
  • Replaced with a better ref
• Current ref 83 is lacking a last access date
  • Done - actually a journal reference

Hm, the numbering has changed on these, I can't find it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 84 Gene R. De Foliart The Human Use of Insects as a Food ... is lacking a publisher
  • Replaced ref
• Current ref 86 Oklahoma state university Tow Step method for fire ant control, you've listed the publisher in the title link, please put it separate

• -Fixed, jimfbleak (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 87 Kennedy C. H. Myrmecological technique has no title for the link, is lackign a last access date and publisher
  • fixed
• Surely the fact that ants are mentioned in religious texts is kind of assumed and really not the level of detail needed in an encyclopedia article.
  • Perhaps good to keep, since these keep creeping in anyway
• Your last three references are lacking last access dates and publisher information, as well as any other bibliographical information.
• What make http://www.boyhoodstudies.com/encyclopaideia.htm a reliable source?
  • good point - replaced with a WP:RS
• http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/socl/customsetiquettefolklore/Kwaidan/toc.html looks like an online copy of a book? If so, it should be formatted as a book reference.
  • Done

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose Considering support

The article is much improved. GrahamColm^Talk 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a few small edits,[1]. GrahamColm^Talk 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Gary's British/American spelling and redundancy comments are far from addressed. Additionally, section headers should not restate the title of the article unless it's impossible not to without being extremely awkward, which isn't at all the case here. Furthermore, measurements need to have a non-breaking space between the measurement and the unit, not a normal space or a hyphen or an en dash or em dash. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the headers except two where it seemed awkward to do otherwise. jimfbleak (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And changed remaining US spellings jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my oppose stands - neighbour and meter are both present in the article at just a cursory glance. There's also cosy, and definitely others that I missed. Also, redundancy isn't fixed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing something here, or they've been fixed. "Neighbour" only occurs as "neighbouring" (UK eng) "cosy" doesn't occur at all, and is UK anyway, "meter" only as "pedometer" (UK eng too) jimfbleak (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was probably looking at an old version of the article - I left the computer for a while and didn't refresh. There is, however, "organized" and "colonized" in the lead, as well as "polarization," "colonization," "optimization," and "specialization" later in the article. The redundancy comment still stands. Also, I think that there's still no non-breaking space between some measurements and units - i.e. 14 litres (3 gallons). Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Fixed

Not yet supporting—Mostly a beautiful article; much of the writing is good; however, my colleagues' queries should be addressed, and I found more micro-issues myself at random, which indicate the need for a general sift-through by a skilled copy-editor to polish the prose. These glitches were from just one five-line section:

• "They continually collect leaves which they cut into tiny pieces for the fungus to grow on." Possible comma before "which"? (Unsure) Or: "They continually collect leaves and cut them into tiny pieces on which the fungus can grow."?
• "There are different sized workers specially suited to the increasingly finer tasks of cutting, chewing leaves and tending the garden."—"There are" always flags to me that the sentence should be scrutinised: "Workers of different size specialise in the increasingly finer tasks of cutting, chewing leaves and tending the garden." You do mean that tending the garden is the most specialised, I assume. And in the current sentence and my alternative, it's still unclear whether the specialisations are each carried out by classes/types of ant that are different size, or whether different-sized ants perform all of those specialisations. I'm being picky, but we need to be precise.
• "Leaf cutter ants are sensitive enough to recognise the fungi's reaction to different plant material, apparently detecting chemical signals from the fungus." I wonder whether the causality is this: "Leaf-cutter ants are apparently sensitive enough to the chemical signals from the fungus to recognise its reaction to different plant material." Tsk tsk, I've changed the logic a little: I guess we've observed that they know, but merely assume that it's on the basis of that sensitivity to chemical signals. Maybe that's a problem in my suggestion. Hyphenate "leaf-cutter ants" so it's easier for us non-experts? "Apparently" is a hedge-word, drawing back from utter certainty; I guess you've weighed that up from your assessment of Ref 48.

You are correct with your assumption, we don't yet have the ability to tell why the ants know, but it is odds on that it is a chemical signal. Is a hedge-word OK in that context? There is another apparently in the text which relates to amber from the early Miocene, this is because the reference is not certain that the possible age of this amber is entirely within early Miocene.^{GameKeeper (talk)}

• Ungainly passive: "The fungi grown by the ants produce special structures called gongylidia that are fed on by the ants." ... that the ants feed on. Or ... on which the ants feed.

And issues with images and captions:

• On my browser, the two images in "Taxonomy and evolution" are messing with the text (A single word lay between the two, and other oddities arose when I widened and narrowed the window). Can both be to the right?
• "A few ants in Baltic Amber"—Um ... "Ants captured ..." or something like that?
• I was about to suggest that you nominate the fertilised queen ant image for featured-image status when I saw that it's already a FI. There are other beauties in the article, especially the images of the honeypot and jumping ants. Wonderful.
• First meat-ant caption: en dash, not hyphen; second one: "Meat ant tending a common leafhopper nymph"—Start with "A"? A few captions are real sentences ("Weaver ants are used as a biological control for citrus cultivation in southern China" is one) and thus require a final period. I see pharoah and weaver ants captions in that camp. "Ant's eggs being sold for consumption in Isaan, Thailand"—You need plural possessive for the first word; and they're not actually "being sold" as claimed, but merely on display for sale as human food. En dash in range, bottom caption. TONY (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to handle these issues except the 1st. I agree with you about images. We have been spoilt for choice with exceptional ant images, if anything it is hard to know which to leave out. Unfortuately the jumping ant image is too low resolution to be considered for FI. It is a very fine image, especially when you know the full details. The image shows an newly mated Harpegnathos saltator queen being killed by another Harpegnathos saltator worker. GameKeeper (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment', or more accurately point of order. Other vertebrates that have specialised as ant predators include the South American antpittas. This is not really true. While some members of the family do indeed eat ants, it is generally one of a range of diet options (the small black and crawly eating niche as it were). The family account of the family on Handbook of the Birds of the World certainly doesn't mention any ant specialists, let alone that the family are them. I am not aware of any bird that is a complete specialist in eating ants, but you might want to mention the specialised birds that follow army ants to eat the insects they flush. The section of the antbird article Antbird#Ant-followers, and Antbird#Ecology have a number of references which could help, particularly talking about the effect it has on birds (like antbirds, woodcreepers and Habia tanagers) and even the kleptoparasitic effect it has on the ants itself. If you like I could add the info? I'll let the authors decide. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Removed the statement and added a bit on antbirds. Do take a look and feel free to make alterations as you see fit. No ownership hassles here. Shyamal (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't ownership I'm worried about, it's unbalancing a long article with semi-relevant info. Having dragged a number of epic length articles to FA I know the premium placed on not adding too much at this stage. I'll do some additions tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.

1) 120–170 million years ago is hardly a "mid-Cretaceous period". Cretaceous began only 145 million years ago. 170 million years corresponds to mid-Jurassic.

• Done - the figures in the reference cited gives 110-130MYA. Shyamal (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

2) In the first section I found "in the Cretaceous and Eocene eras". However neither Cretaceous nor Eocene is an era. The former is a geological period, and the latter is a geological epoch. Cretaceous is called era twice in the same section.

3) In the lead the article says 'Ants dominate most ecosystems, forming 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass'. However the numbers in 'Distribution and diversity' are different—15-25%.

• Done - it is 15-20% on average and up to 25% in the tropics Shyamal (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

4) The word 'eusociality' should explained or removed from the lead.

• Removed usage but link to social - is for eusociality which is an insect specific term. Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: a lot of basic cleanup needs. See WP:MOS#Images regarding punctuation of image captions, sentence fragments and complete sentences. I saw a random parenthetical insert, not compelling prose: (See also Kin selection) and (See also Langton's ant and ant colony optimisation.) If those See alsos are significant, they can be worked seamlessly into the text or included as hatnotes at the top of the section. Per 2c, consistent citation style, there is no consistency in citation of author names; please pick one style for last name first name and punctuation. HTML doesn't have to be indicated in citations (it's the default). Some DOIs are linked; others are not. Some journal article titles are in quotes; others are not. There are consistency issues throughout the citations (perhaps they were added by different editors who used different styles?) After doing some of the basic cleanup there, it might be helpful to ask Epbr123 to run through the article, looking for MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have moved reference formatting from the template:Cite journal to template:Citation and split all the authors and now relying on the template code to provide consistent format. DOI links fixed some were id=doi:.... now made to doi=... .The remaining issue to resolve is the citation of pages from the Holldobler & Wilson book. The full book citation itself is only present in the General references section and so the other citations to the book currently follow harvard (ie Hölldobler & Wilson (1990), pp. 23–24). Please advise. Shyamal (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary to change citation methods; you now have a new problem with mixed citations (see WP:CITE#Citation style, cite templates shouldn't be mixed with the citation template). Cite journal was fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Partly undone. I hope someone else can fix this problem. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the The Ants citations with a templated {{CiteTheAnts}}, this can quickly be changed back to another style by changing the template at Template:CiteTheAnts. But I have now seen Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations recommends keeping a separate section for frequently cited sources which I think means I should undo this change. Like you a bit confused by this. GameKeeper (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of Wikipedia:FACR 2c) consistent citations means to either use footnotes or use harvard citations (not that the citations themselves must all be one style). The whole of Ants uses footnotes which I assume is what this criteria wants. The actual footnote formatting of names is mixed. The majority being The Chicago Manual of Style but some being in different styles. I have been using Bird as a kind of reference as it is a very good FA about another organism. Its citations are in mixed format (some Chicago, some APA style etc). Note the in The Chicago Manual of Style [2] multiple authors are listed - LastName1, FirstName1, FirstName2 LastName2 & FirstName3 LastName3. which mixes up the order of lastname & firstname within the reference. GameKeeper (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see in Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_styles it specifically says Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent with reference to a list of styles. GameKeeper (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct; please re-read my original post. The citations are not consistently formatted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)