Talk:Prionomyrmecini

Prionomyrmecini 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 6, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Insects: Ants Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Ant task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Prionomyrmecini is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Prionomyrmecini appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 January 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the ant tribe Prionomyrmecini has two members, the genus Prionomyrmex, which is extinct, and Nothomyrmecia, which is critically endangered?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prionomyrmecini.

Wikipedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	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).	Good work.
	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.	Description needs to be expanded. Just noticed about the description that there are many descriptions weaved into the Distribution paragraph. It would be useful to move some of the info into the Description paragraph, or maybe merge the two. Gug01 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Expanded the description a little bit, but I have merged the two sections. The Behavior paragraph should also be expanded, especially a bit on the passing of the colony from mother to daughter. This should be easy because source 21 in its abstract alone has enough information to add two or three sentences. Don't focus only on the inheritance, please. Will look through. Is there anything else other than that you want more of? Not entirely clear as to what you would like. No problems. Gug01 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Taxonomy is disproportionately large, maybe cut down on the paragraph. Condensed. Please check if the article is now focused. No problems/ Gug01 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	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.	But more editors would be good, not that the lack of many involved editors will affect my decision in any way.
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.	Good work. Thanks for reviewing!

Cheers for taking this on. I won't be able to respond to your comments for most of today because my hands are fully occupied, but I will come back later tonight. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]