Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ant

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 July 2008 [1].

---

Ant

Nominator: Shyamal

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)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to me that the concerns in the first nomination have been addressed. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. reiterating my support again for a second time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. (see old nom) Ruslik (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. There's still a few arkward phrases, but nothing serious enough to prevent FA. GrahamColm^Talk 09:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I supported first time round too jimfbleak (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Briefly stated, badly needs a copyedit, and its failure to define terms that would completely baffle laymen.
  • Image:Ants in amber.jpg is so small on the page that the ants are not visible. A crop or a larger thumbnail would help.
  • Taxonomy and Evolution "The specimen, trapped in amber from New Jersey, is more than 80 million years old" - is this referring to the first fossil that E. O. Wilson found? I don't think the amber is properly referred to as "from New Jersey", New Jersey didn't exist at that time. In the previous sentence "obtained" is an awkward word, I'd have said "found" or "discovered". likewise "amber fossil remains" is awkward Wouldn't it be easier to say something like "In a 1966 palaeontological dig in New Jersey, E. O. Wilson and his team discovered the first Cretaceous fossil remains of an ant trapped in amber. Dating from over 80 million years ago, this species, Sphecomyrma freyi is an evolutionary link between primitive, non-social wasps and modern ants.[11]

I agree this should be rewritten, but the facts must be preserved. The Ant in amber was found by an amateur fossil hunter in cliffs in New Jersey, he passed it on to Wilson et al. for classification. Some details here Sphecomyrma freyi GameKeeper (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Of course, if I was really picky, that "is an evolutionary link between primitive, non-social wasps and modern ants" is slightly wrong as well - it illustrates the evolutionary link, but evolution is a bush, and so it's far more likely that any species found was not a direct ancestor of the modern group, but a sister group. "illustrates the evolutionary link" is more accurate.
  • I don't think you say clearly enough that termites are in no way related to ants. They're from a different order. The sentence explaining this also comes from out of left field.
  • Distribution and diversity Use transitional phrases. Don't say "Ants are found on all continents except Antarctica. Many islands such as Greenland, Iceland, parts of Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands lack native ant species." say "Ants are found on all continents except Antarctica, although many islands such as Greenland, Iceland, parts of Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands lack native ant species.
  • As a whole, this section is not very well written.
  • Morphology The summary paragraph at the start uses a lot of specialist biological terms. It is far more useful, in a general encyclopaedia, to use layman-friendly terms at first, then go through and explain the proper terms as you go into more detail. However, this section never actually explains many of the difficult terms used in the first paragraph.
  • Polymorphism Reference does not support statement: You imply that "This polymorphism in morphology and behaviour does not rely on a large or complex genome;" because one species has only one chromosome. It may well be true - in fact, it almost certainly is - but the logic is faulty: The size of the chromosomes matters: an unqualified "one pair of chromosomes" sounds small, but it may, in fact, contain more information than two pairs of much smaller chromosomes. Likewise, you need to demonstrate the jack jumper ant also exhibits substantial polymorphism - if it does not, then the whole implied connection falls apart.

The connections were indeed a little loose, I did some further research and have reworded this and avoided the strong claims made earlier. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Development "Ants are holometabolous, and develop by complete metamorphosis, and pass through larval and pupal stages before they become adults." Explain your terms, this is for laymen.

Dropped the usage of holometabolous. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "apocrita" not defined, and made worse by lack of capitalisation. Something along the lines of "the suborder, Apocrita" would make it clear.

Dropped the usage of apocrita - link available via taxobox in any case. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Give the definition promptly. "The pupa is "exarate", that is, the appendages are free and not fused to the body as in a butterfly pupa." is far less confusing than "The pupa is "exarate" as in most other apocrita, that is, the appendages are free and not fused to the body as in a butterfly pupa."
  • "Thus, ants are more K-selected than most insects." - You can't seriously expect laymen to know about r-type and K-type strategies.

Dropped this, hopefully the strategy comparisons will be included in the insect article ! Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "diapause". Define it.

Bracketed. Not essential. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • That gets us up to the start of "Behaviour and ecology", tell me when you want me to have another look. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with some of the points raised, but should the article have to stand alone without the need for readers visiting links for further information? Explanations of many of the terms would make it enormous apart from duplicating information available from the linked articles. I presume and hope that the "you" in the above refers to "we". Shyamal (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will apologise if that came out too critical - it is a pretty good article, and I think the problems are eminently fixable, but they do need dealt with. I think it's necessary to explain any terms not covered in high school, GCSE, or similar biology courses. For instance, it can be presumed that they know basic things like head, thorax, and abdomen, but "holometabolous", "metapleural glands", "mesosoma", "petiole", and "haemolymph" - here a brief description, immediately after first use of the word, would make this article much more inviting. Basically, don't write for biologists, write for intelligent laymen, and avoid at all costs any paragraph which would require a reasonably-intelligent layman to read several other articles to understand - instead, summarise for him =)

I'd normally be happy to help, but I'm really ill at the moment and can't do much. If you give me a couple days (and still need them) then my services are at your disposal. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you a speedy recovery! I can definitely do with any amount of help. While I can and will attempt a few fixes, this is going to be limited by work and travel. Shyamal (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In the UK GCSE examinations are taken by 15–16 year old children. I am happy to see terms not covered by biology courses at this level linked. Terms not taught to 19 year-olds, on those courses aimed at this age group, may require further explanation. I think it is a bit over the top to say that read[ing] several other articles is needed. More often than not on Wikipedia, an adequate definition is given in the first sentence of the article. Having said this, the nominators might want to consider deleting throw-away lines such as the one about r/K selection. Shoemaker is right about this; to me they look a bit like showing -off. GrahamColm^Talk 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. We can presume most peopl e took a GCSE in biology, or Highschool biology, or some equivalent. We cannot, however, write this for undergraduate biologists - it is on ants. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted some simplification, but regarding certain linked technical terms I still find it difficult to entirely explain it in the article. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the above reviewer that Image:Ants in amber.jpg could do with a crop. Hardly 20% of the photo is of the amber itself. A simple crop with MS Paint should do the trick. indopug (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I cropped it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, as before, the prose is far from brilliant, engaging, or professional. Here's what I can find on a casual run-through taking all of five minutes:

• As per WP:FACR the prose does not need to be brilliant, only engaging and professional. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Before, the prose was said to require another 5% of work. GrahamColm^Talk 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with that assessment, if you call writing the article work on the text. Clearly, a copyedit would be minor compared to actually writing some 80 kilobytes of text, but a copyedit it needs nonetheless. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae and, along with the related families of wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera." - "family" is already stated in the description of ants, to restate it in comparing like groups is redundant. In fact, what does "related" mean, anyways, in this context? If "related" means that they belong to the same order, then it too is redundant and "Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae and, along wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera." would be even more concise. Pardon me if I'm wrong about the latter, though.

• Family is a strictly defined term in taxonomy—the wording is a correct. GrahamColm^Talk 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The hierarchies of families and order may also be explored via the taxobox. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't particularly understand how that answers the question. "Family" as a descriptor for the ants already appears in the first part of the sentence, and repeating it is redundant. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what that has to do with the redundancy. I'm a layman at this subject, so could you clarify? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropping the families would lump wasp and bees together, which would be technically incorrect and it is worth noting that these are all sister families within the Hymenoptera. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would it make it seem as though the wasps and bees were one entity? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• "They are easily identified by their elbowed antennae and a distinctive node-like structure that forms a slender waist." - really? The structure "forms" a slender waste?

• It does. GrahamColm^Talk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The structure might include a slender waist, but "forms" isn't generally used in that sense. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange as it may be, it is the waist but forms seems to be a better link verb. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But the structure would be more than just the waist - the waist is not the whole ant. That's why I think that includes would be a better choice. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A google search for petiole+waist / pedicel+waist confirms that this wording is widespread.Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? Looking at both, it shows no results relevant to the wording at all. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Redundancy: "Ant colonies also have some fertile males called "drones" and one or more fertile females called "queens"

• "some" is clearly being used to indicate a small number. "A few" or "several" would be better, but "some" can correctly express quantity. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Some" does not indicate an approximation of the value at all in this context. This is a clear-cut case of redundancy - I'm surprised you challenged this one. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Further on in the text, it is noted that drones are transitory and produced in numbers only during swarming - so dropping the some would make it look like they are as common as the workers. Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. How exactly does the supremely vague word "some" make a comparison between how many workers/drones there are? The answer is that it doesn't. Dropping the some would do no such thing, and I'm not sure how what you're saying is even relevant. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The colonies are sometimes described as superorganisms because ants appear to operate as an unified entity, collectively working together to support the colony" - "a", not "an" before "unified". Also, the "the" before "colonies" is unnecessary and conflicts with the lack of a similar article before "ants".
• "Ants dominate most ecosystems, and form 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass." -> More concisely phrased as: "Ants dominate most ecosystems, forming 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass."

• I disagree, Ants dominate...forming is not correct, Ants dominate..and form is. GrahamColm^Talk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Really? I thought both are correct grammatically. I'll trust you on this one. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also disagree. It could be changed to "Ants dominate most ecosystems; they form..." Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Their success has been attributed to their social structure, ability to modify their habitats, tap resources and defend themselves." - confusing sentence. I had to read it thrice to understand what it meant. It's also most likely grammatically incorrect. Suggest rephrasing as "Their success has been attributed to their ability to modify their habitats, tap resources, and defend themselves, as well as their social structure."

Could be misread as meaning "defend their social structure" which would not be particularly correct. Shyamal(talk) 03:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The meaning is clear with the comma as disjunction in my modification. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Ant societies have division of labour, communication between individuals and an ability to solve complex problems" - you use the serial comma elsewhere, why not here?
• "Many human cultures make use of ants in cuisine, medication and rituals." - same as above.
• "However, the ability to exploit resources brings ants into conflict with humans as they can damage crops and invade buildings." - comma needed before "as".
• "Some species, such as the red imported fire ant, are regarded as invasive species, since they can spread rapidly into new areas." -> "Species such as the red imported fire ant are regarded as..."
• "Their colours vary; most are red or black, green is less common, some tropical species have a metallic lustre." - "and" before "some".
• "Some ants such as Australia's bulldog ant however, have exceptional vision" -> "Ants such as Australia's bulldog ant, however, have exceptional vision."
• "(although some species, like army ants have wingless queens)" - comma missing.

Have handled some of the comma issues pointed out. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Addressing all these points is not enough. I only went thoroughly through the lead and skimmed random paragraphs in the main body of the text. A full copyedit would be appreciated. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's a contradiction here. You say thoroughly but above you say Here's what I can find on a casual run-through taking all of five minutes: GrahamColm^Talk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I sad thoroughly through the lead, which isn't exactly a large portion of the article. I'll respond to your other responses later. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with your opposition to the prose. Most of the issues you have raised are minor errors, or debatable phrasing (and several of your suggestions make matters worse, not better). You seem to misunderstand the WP:FACR. The prose does not need to be perfect (or brilliant for that matter), but only engaging and professional. The minor comma errors and the like should be fixed when noticed, but these minor errors should not prevent this article from becoming featured. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• And I disagree with you and advise you to reread WP:FACR. The prose does not have to be absolutely perfect, sure, but the article is sprinkled with minor errors, which you can hardly call professional. You claim that my changes make the text worse - I see only one that did, the "dominate...forming" point. The rest you are opposed to I stand firm on. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. per previous Lwnf360 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC).
• Support This is such a terrificly organized and engaging article - the pictures! Wow! Terrific! This article only needs a little brown star at the top for it to be improved. NancyHeise (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The dead links don't look very good. 116135 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean the red links rather than dead external links. Shyamal (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Have removed some red-links, most of the remainder are to species and journals. Not sure about what the general view is but links to unwritten articles such as those for the journals could be removed. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to remove redlinks (they encourage article building); redlinks are not a valid oppose, and they do not need to be removed. 04:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - overall excellent and very comprehensive. I've got partway through, so these are preliminary comments. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "By the Oligocene and Miocene ants had come to represent 20–40% of all insects found in major fossil deposits" - this is a very weak statment, could this be made a bit more definite?

These estimates are from samples in amber and the variation is best retained as no further accuracy is achievable. Most importantly, even the lower estimate is significant. In the absence of accuracy, the only improvement could be to make it more vague (from a quarter to nearly half). Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Of the species that lived in the Eocene epoch, one of approximately ten genera survive to the present. Of the genera, 56% are represented in Baltic amber fossils (early Oligocene), and 92% of the genera represented in Dominican amber fossils (apparently early Miocene) still survive today." - this seems poorly-worded. If this is indeed one out of ten, rather than one in ten, you need to reorder these sentences so you discuss the ancient diversity first, and then end by saying how many of these genera survive today.

Will need User:GameKeeper to look at this in detail. It seems that the first part on diversity is organized by time and then the survival of genera restarts on a time scale. Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why is Distribution and diversity a subheading in taxonomy and evolution? The subjects of current distribution don't seem to be closely-related to taxonomy or evolution.

It is a function of evolutionary history, perhaps some notes linking the two are needed. Promoting it to a section should also work. Promoted section. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Insects also lack closed blood vessels; instead, they have a long, thin, perforated tube along the top of the body (called the "dorsal aorta") that functions like a heart, and pumps haemolymph towards the head, thus aiding the circulation of the internal fluids." If the dorsal aorta only aids the circulation of fluids, this must mean it is not the sole reason the fluids circulate and that other mechanisms are involved. It would be good to either say what these are, or replace "aids" with "causes" or "drives"

From Borror, Triplehorn, Johnson- The movement of hemolymph is brought about by pulsations of the heart and is aided in other parts of the body, such as the base of the legs and wings, by accessory pulsatile organs. - i am inclined to leave it in the current form. Modified. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "They are quick to abandon established nests at the first sign of threats." - unclear if this is ants in general, or the species mentioned in the previous sentence.

Status? Where does the copyedit stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Five days with no article changes; are nominators still responding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the readily actionable items have been handled and responded to. Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I opposed the previous nom., but can't see an oppose above. I suppose the writing's OK now. TONY (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a full copy-edit, prose looks OK to me now. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice,[2] thanks Tim! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.