Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article would greatly benefit to receive feedback on where it currently stands in quality from the community. This was also a former GA candidate which was withdrawn due to a lot of grammatical issues, poor layout and complicated, irrelevant and contradictory statements, as well as current hardships in my personal life which strained time on actually trying to improve the article. After review, it was greatly expanded, and issues that were not solved during GA review are now dealt with, and a copyedit was initiated. Editors who are particularly interested in the medical fields and have high standard knowledge are especially encouraged to make comment to this, since that would help me a lot to bring this article to GA status. Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And the exact opposite of who you asked for is here. Since this has been in the backlog and by your request, I've asked three editors knowledgeable in this field from the volunteer list to comment here. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok some notes:

• Try not to have the 3 lead paras all start with "jack jumper" or something like it.

Done.

• The queen has a similar appearance to a worker, and males are identifiable by their perceptibly smaller mandibles. - I'd put this sentence after the measurements - and actually try to merge it into the last sentence of the para

Done. Feel free to let me know if you're still unsatisfied with the issue.

• However, total deaths could be as high as six. - I'd make this lead sentence a footnote

This statement later used in the article has also been made into a footnote.

• The taxonomic history of the genus Myrmecia was an interest to entomologists - err, why?

I tried to find an explanation to this, but I was unsuccessful. Removed.

• Most ancestors of the jack jumper ant, and Myrmecia as a whole, are found only in fossils - err, you'd expect that as they wouldn't be ancestors if alive today...I am not sure of the significance/emphasis of this sentence

Removed sentence altogether.

• The distribution in the lead does not match the body of the article

Rewrote. Hopefully it appears better.

• Most places that "very" is used...the word is unnecessary

Removed most.

• Link anaphylactic shock/anaphylaxis in body of text

I assume you mean the parts in "Interaction with humans"? If so this is done.

This article is looking much improved from when I last looked at it. A few points:

• You need to think about your use of singular and plural pronouns. For example in the second lead paragraph it states "The average jack jumper worker has a life expectancy of over one year. They possess the gamergates gene ..." There are other instances of this elsewhere in the article.

I will read the article and correct any I see. I'll notify you here and ask you to check if it's all good.

• The words "jack jumper" occur excessively frequently in the article. If you didn't want to use "it" all the time, you could use "this ant" or "this species" occasionally.

Replacing "jack jumper" with your recommendations now. Just check if you're happy once I have finished.

Edit: The word has been reduced from 175 to 114. More than half are found in citation titles.

• "Insecticidal control of the jack jumper ant is successful in maintaining their populations around suburban habitats." - This is a curious statement, insecticides are not usually used to "maintain" populations.

I have changed it to "chemical control". Is this better?

Edit: I have found a better statement.

• The section "Interaction with humans" is very long. Would it be better to separate this off into a separate article? After all it is about the reaction of humans to ant stings rather than about the ants themselves. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will check for some parts to remove. However as said below, the length is not exactly a reason to fail the article from GA, unless you can think of an exception to this.

I think that the interactions with humans belongs on this page. See the redback spider article for comparison. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the redback spider article is a featured article itself and a large percentage of its content is about its interaction with humans and such. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy-edited the article slightly. I think it should pass GA without much trouble this time around, as it is well structured, properly cited, and whatever else may have been said presentably written. The GA criteria do not call for perfect prose, just decent writing, which this is. I'd concur that the Interaction with Humans section has become rather long for the article; this is not reason to fail GA, but it could be hived off leaving a Main link and a short summary. A minor thing is that titles in the 'cite' template should not end with '.' as the template takes care of that; I've fixed a few of 'em. The medical part is close to straying into WP:HOWTO advice (e.g. "it is recommended to...") though it rarely crosses the line there. I haven't seen evidence that being a gamergate is controlled by a single gene, so I've replaced that implication with the simple statement that workers are gamergates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedits and general improvements. I have been reading the "Interaction with humans" part quite a few times, checking which parts should be removed. I have only detected only this part which I believe should be removed. Do you think this sentence is relevant?

"Loss of cell viability in the jack jumper's venom was researched through cytometry, which measures the proportions of cells that glow in the presence of fluorescent dye and 7-Aminoactinomycin D. Examinations of the rapidly reproducing Epstein–Barr B-cells showed that the cells lost viability within minutes when exposed to pilosulin 1. Normal white blood cells were also found to alter easily when exposed to pilosulin 1. However, partial peptides of pilosulin 1 were less efficient at lowering cell viability; the residue 22 N-terminal plays a critical role in the cytotoxic activity of pilosulin 1.[121]"

I think the residue sentence and a short summary of cell viability should remain, rather being in excessive detail. However, I wish to ask this to yourself and other reviewers here to see if this part is actually necessary. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about one or two sentences, but, like User:Cwmhiraeth, about the large percentage of the article that is devoted to Interaction with humans. A species article normally says little about humans; where there is a lot of human interest, it is worth considering having a subsidiary article on that topic, which is what both of us are suggesting. The result is a ((main|Jack jumper ants and humans)) (or similar) link, and a short summary section saying what the subsidiary article is about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking its general relevance, although you do bring up a good point. But Snowman has mentioned a fair point above if you would like to respond to that. Would a name change such as "Stings to humans" (obviously inspired from the redbacks bites to humans) be more appropriate? Burklemore1 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No to using "Stings to humans" as a heading at the present time. "Stings to humans" was used in the redback spider article, because of the topic of spider bites to animals. Which raises the question; is there any information about ant bites to animals - ie pets and farm animals. Snowman (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any information about animals getting stung. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ant bites to animals might not have been studied much, but I would think it was odd if pets and farm animals do not get ant stings from time to time. Snowman (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re; the paper "Jumper ants destroy cancer cells". This is a 2001 study about the cutting edge of research at that time. What has happened over the following 14 years? Why not name the specific venom component? Snowman (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any up to date or recent information or any specific venom component, so I have decided to remove this sentence.

• Re: "A severe allergic reaction can cause symptoms such as difficulty breathing and talking, swelling of the tongue and throat, coughing, chest tightness, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, loss of consciousness or collapse, and in children, symptoms like paleness and floppiness.[127]". This is very similar to the account in the reference, and it almost looks like it has been copied. I do not know why the symptom of "confusion" has been excluded. This article had a problem with blocks of texts copied from articles and I think that it would be worth confirming that all of the copied parts have been modified or paraphrased. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I perhaps didn't see the "confusion" symptom written, but thank you for pointing it out. I will check every sentence to see if it has copyvios.

• Whilst the medical content looks generally improved, I would think that it is not up to GA standard at the present time. I should add that I have not got a lot of time to elaborate on this, but I think that it would be worth double checking every medical fact with what said in the corresponding inline reference. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again Snowman. So are you asking for additional verification/confirmation or such with every reference given in accordance to its cited statement? Burklemore1 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and it would be equally important to check the phraseology in the Wiki article and see if the Wiki article accurately reflects what the sources say. For example; "several attempts were done to desensitize patients ...". What does "several attempts were done" mean? Taken literally this could mean and several people (perhaps three) were experimental subjects and that is all. Does it mean several projects, several studies were published, or what? Please also indicate what is the nature of these old studies. This time, I think that this should not be "fixed" by deleting this topic from the article, because I think that a logical sequence in the history section can be created using this old science and the new science. Of course, it is difficult for non-specialists to write about complex science, and I think that it is a credit to you that you are aware of your limitations. Snowman (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but you also must know that some sources citing single information have not been republished with modern results, so what is there is what must be given for the time being, even if it would be more suitable in the history section. If new medical research reflecting on this information is shown, it will be cited here unless it's deemed as a primary source. I have rechecked the source and it didn't really clarify anything, so "several" was removed, by the way. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed my point, and your reply does not make sense to me. The reference currently used if from 2014, so that is good enough and it does briefly mention the old science. The old science is the use of whole-body preparation to desensitize patients. The new science is the use of venom to desensitize. There is a world of difference between these substances, and I think that describing the history of the science of ant sting desensitization would make a good logical paragraph in the history section. Not only that, I think that the history section is a bit disorganized, so would you have a look at it and see what you can do. You might need an extra reference for the use of the whole body product. Snowman (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it did not make sense; perhaps this was my own error for taking in your statement differently. So what you are saying is, a new paragraph describing the history of ant sting desensitization should be written or such? Could you also please give a brief explanation as to why the section is disorganised? Since you say "might" in your last comment, what suitable reference might I need to add for the backup of the statement given? Burklemore1 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to what I have described as a disorganized section; please have another look. With regard to a reference; it is just a case of finding a suitable reference about the use of the whole-body ant product and its ineffectiveness in immunizing Humans against the ant venom. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"One synonym for the species has been published – Ponera ruginoda (also titled Myrmecia ruginoda),[10] described by Smith in the same work based on a holotype male.[5] The synonym was initially placed into the genera Ectatomma and Rhytidoponera.[11][12] It was later classified as a junior synonym of the jack jumper ant, after specimens of each were compared.[1][13][14] Between ants with occipital carinae, the species was shown to be a monophyletic grouping, while other such Myrmecia ants were found to form a paraphyletic and basal assemblage"

• This gives the impression that "synonyms" are consciously published. This needs to be corrected. The more likely scenario is that Smith based his name on the male specimen (clarification needed for what it was a holotype for - ie which species?). It seems that either he or someone else later identified it as being of the same species and that would automatically make the first described name valid and the second one a junior synonym. Again this bit about ants with an occipital ridge needs either more expansion or removal. What it shows is that this particular morphological character is found in multiple branches and I am not sure that is helpful here. It might be relevant in the article on the genus Myrmecia. Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Jack jumper ants are highly territorial; fights between these ants are not uncommon, even among those of the same colony."

• This does not make sense - fights within the colony could be related to policing of reproductives but sorry cannot be due to territory maintenance.

These are two different facts. Their behaviour of being highly territorial isn't related to them fighting each other.

Edit: I have rewritten it, and I'll also try and find a source for the statement.