Wikipedia:Peer review/Parasitic ant/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
I'm looking to take this to FAC soon, however I am sure I am missing something. I have no experience with the venue, so I would like some eyes beforehand.
Thanks, Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 01:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Looks pretty good from a first glance. I will look into the prose later, and also I don't have much biology knowledge so specialist things may be lost on me. I will first focus on what I am best at, images and source formatting.
- Source formatting
- I see a few issues here.
- Several sources are formatted with .com or .org (citation 1, 2, 14, 23, 25) in the name, which generally should not be done (unless it's the name of the website, which isn't common). "Why freeloader baby-eating ants are welcomed to the colony" work title is just the title again. Replace with the actual name of the work there as well (in that case, Ohio State News).
- We're very inconsistent on linking journal articles. I would recommend against including a link in the citation parameter for journal articles, unless the link is a free access copy different from the DOI. If it is a free access DOI simply indicating that will make the link automatic. If you link it like this it 1) duplicates the non-free DOI, which will lead you there anyway. E.g. citation 12 and 34 the main paywalled link and the DOI are the same so I don't see the point of linking it again; compare this with citation 31, where we are linking a non-free copy the same as the DOI but not indicating it at all. This way, the reader hits some dead ends.
- We're also inconsistent on the linking of journals in citations and magazines. Either link all that have articles or link none (I prefer all, but it's up to you).
- We're inconsistent on what identifiers we use. I would recommend just cutting the S2CID ids because they are useless w/o a free copy and only keeping ISSNs and DOIs on citations + pmc/pmid if it has one. Don't know enough about bibcode to say there though maybe that's worth keeping. Consistency is what matters
- Citation 48 is capitalized weird and has the publisher in an odd way + should be linked for consistency with other book refs
- You're also inconsistent on using long vs short refs. It's acceptable to use long refs only for non-paginated sources or for ones you only cite one page for, but that's not what we're doing here. You are citing individual sources repeatedly over multiple page ranges with long refs and using a handful of sources like once with sfns. You can use a mix but it has to be a consistent mix
- some sources are using cs2
- no rhyme or reason to usage of lock templates, also mixing orange and green without distinction, seemingly
- cite 15 formatted with work as author
- cite 32 is formatted in an inconsistent way
- cites 24, 41 has authors not listed
- Is antkeepers reliable? seems like a pet site? is envirobites a "high quality" source? same with the entheogram
- Cite 26 and 36 are marked borderline. 1 is Frontiers which iirc are better for taxonomy than other topics so that may be fine but I'm not sure enough about 36 to say
- Images
- I feel like the article is a bit bereft of images. But we simply may not have very many relevant ones, so that is fine. If you can find 1 or 2 more relevant ones that would help, but it wouldn't fail without them.
- Of the three we have here
- all 3 images need alt text
- all three look to have valid free licenses.
- Generally, good on the image front, but add the alts.
- I will look over prose/structuring later as mentioned. My other concern is hard to gauge as I have little specialist knowledge, but while this definitely fits GA's broadness, does it fulfill the FA "comprehensiveness" criterion? How good an overview of the literature on parasitic ants is this? Are there big sources you are leaving out? I have no clue but FA comprehensiveness is a higher bar than GA has PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)