Talk:Prolasius advenus

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prolasius advenus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AxonsArachnida (talk · contribs) 07:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 15:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Before I get into it, could the "citation needed" (ref #10) be dealt with? Esculenta (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Esculenta I've removed it. I don't know why that user added it in the first place. AxonsArachnida (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Review

• Spot-checks: I checked most of the online sources and didn't find any issues with source-text integrity or close paraphrasing.
• Image: Properly captioned and licensed
• "Taxonomy and etymology" I don't see any etymology (related: what does advena mean?)
  • Removed "and etymology". Advena means foreign/outsider. It's unclear to me why it was applied to this species, so I avoided speculating.
• "In 1878, Smith described a synonym of this species, Formica zealandica." Source supports the describing, but does not support its synonymy. This could be resolved by placing a citation in the "synonyms_ref" taxobox parameter
  • Added citation to synonyms ref
• possibly useful links: described, mealy-bug (should this be one unhyphenated word?), scale insect, honeydew, pheromone, rove beetle, beech, podocarp; starvation doesn't need a link
  • Done.
• please link the authorities listed in the taxobox synonyms
  • Done where possible.
• This is not GA criteria, but for best practice on Wikipedia taxon articles, there should be redirects for both the common name, and for all of the synonyms listed in the tabobox.
  • The common name is too generic for this. I added a redirect for the synonyms.
• "… transferred to other genera merous times'
  • Fixed.
• "2.9-3.5mm (0.11-0.14 in) in length" en-dashes (not hyphens) should be used for number ranges; the inclusion of imperial units is unnecessary (although not prohibited), and even more so for a NZ-based article. If you decide to keep the unneeded converts, then do the same with "1200m" later. And for best practice, there should be a non-breaking space between numbers and units to ensure they don't get split across two lines on mobile screens.
  • Fixed.
• "The antennae is 12 segmented" is->are
  • Fixed.
• colored-> coloured
  • Fixed.
• "They are also known to occur on offshore islandsThree Kings Islands." Needs a fix
  • Fixed.
• "They are also known to occur" -> "They also occur"
  • Fixed.
• "They are known to occur in habitats" -> "They occur in habitats" ... etc., there are more examples of the unnecessary filler words "known to"
  • Fixed.
• "There is very little overlap in distribution between P. advenus and Chelaner antarcticus..." This would be a good place to explicitly mention niche partitioning or competitive exclusion if the source supports it, to add depth to the ecological context.
  • I was wondering about this. I've added niche partitioning because it seems like a pretty clear example to me, but is this fine even though its not explicitly stated in the article?
• this source (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0165) documents "ant-dropping from height" interference behaviour by invasive wasps, which I think is relevant and interesting enough for a mention
  • Added.
• this study (doi:10.1111/jen.12032) investigates starvation behaviour and might be used to flesh out the existing discussion in the article.
  • Added.
• this source (doi:10.1007/s00040-013-0312-8) mentions that P. advenus uses venom during aggressive interactions (not mentioned in the article) and that "In forest areas, colonies of P. advenus were observed to have nests containing up to 6,000 workers", which is much larger than the example given in the article, and further explains that colonies tend to be much smaller when outside their usual range.
  • Added.

Overall, the article is quite close, with only minor tweaks needed. The suggested additional sources are not required for GA, but ones I thought might have useful info to add. Will place this on hold. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Esculenta Thanks for your comments. I'll tackle this in the next 2 to 3 days. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Esculenta I've replied to everything above. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I copyedited the text; revert anything I messed up. I noticed that the article flips between treating the species as singular vs plural ("is endemic" in the lead, but "are endemic" in Distribution); I think the usual choice for taxon articles like these is singular. Regarding the 'niche partitioning' claim, having looked at the source, I'm worried about WP:OR risk, as they don't explicitly mention this phrase. A safer replacement might be "The authors suggested that environmental conditions may act as a strong filter contributing to the negative co-occurrence observed between the two species." ... which stays within the boundaries of the source, but still adds depth. In the taxonomy section, the synonym sentence could use a tweak for historical accuracy: Smith didn't "describe a synonym"; Brown (1958) treated it as a synonym. Esculenta (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Esculenta Cheers. I've made the suggested changes you listed above. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! Promoting the article now. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)