Talk:Red imported fire ant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do these ants really respect the border ...[edit]

...or have they crossed the infamous wall and migrated south as well? Does anyone have information about their habitats in Mexico? Babelnetz (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Sting?" Try 100[edit]

Having lived in california, I can tell you this: there's almost never *one* fire ant. Colonies spring up overnight in sidewalks and other high-traffic places and the colony can be active before they build their telltale mounds. Step near one and spook a foraging ant, and you'll have a hundred ants going after your foot in a couple seconds. As with africanized bees, the minor effects of the venom are overshadowed by this swarming behavior that can result in many stings over a short period.

Oh, and the suckers bite while they sting you, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article has an inexcusable POV title: it is not "imported" in the species' native range, and the title should reflect its native context, not its context as a pest species in countries where it is introduced. Ditto for the text as a whole, which needs a lot more balance and information about its natural ecology in its native region - MPF 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move the article then? Mushintalk 11:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, it appears that entomologists acknowlege the common name "red imported fire ant". It's all over the Web, along with its taxonomic name. Ditto for Black imported fire ant, which is part of a group that includes S. geminata, S. invicta, S. richteri, S. saevissima and S. xyloni. The title should stay as-is, but the article could explicitly state that the common name is, well, common, and not a biased view of the authors. It should also be rewritten to be neutral or present a more global point of view. --QuicksilverT @ 20:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article contains inconsistencies concerning the capitalization. For example, the article title is “Red imported fire ant” (lowercase) while the first five words in the introduction are “the Red Imported Fire Ant” (uppercase). Web searches do not help with my decision-making because I am receiving mixed results, although most either are all lowercase (i.e. red imported fire ant) or have all first letters of words in uppercase (i.e. Red Imported Fire Ant). For some more consistency, which one should we go with? --HeteroZellous 22:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because nobody has replied within 10 days, I have proceeded to change the capitalization to favour the all-lowercase, which I presume is the article title. --HeteroZellous 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


started that this article doesn't cite any sources (I just added the first one, as far as I can tell), yet another publication used the article as a reference. Is that upsetting to anyone else? -- Mikeblas 22:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Fire Ant[edit]

It appears that the fire ant article refers to the genus to which the RIFA belongs. As far as I can tell, it's standard to have a separate article for genera and species within a particular genus, so I'm removing this tag. Gimme danger 05:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Someone just removed Mississippi from the list of states in which the RIFA lives. I can't see why, I'm going to revert it. Gimme danger 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hot? take a chill stupid dog...?[edit]

"The worst damage usually occurs during hot, dry weather when they invade flowerbeds while seeking warmth and moisture." Wtf? -b 01:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture of a nest?[edit]

Can someone add a photo of a fire ant nest? Perhaps even a before/after showing that an innocuous mound of dirt turns into a seething mass of pissed off ants within seconds if the nest is stepped on, unlike other ants. Gront (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead Links[edit]

Reference # 9 is no longer available on the CNN site. Fasulo (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"News about Extermination in China" external reference is no longer available. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. Distribution Map for Real?[edit]

I would like to know the origin of the U.S. distribution map on the WP article. I have been updating the UF/IFAS Featured Creatures publication on this species and I am almost 100% sure the map on the WP page reflects an older potential U.S. distribution. Current potential distribution has the RIFA going right up the West Coast. However, the RIFA infestation in California, to my knowledge, is limited to the southern part of that state, unlike what is seen on the map. Plus, there are no reports, that I am aware of, of RIFA in Arizona, New Mexico, Virginia or Maryland. I could not find supporting information on the USDA sites. If this is true, and the species is continually spreading, would someone point me to the source of this distribution information? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I contacted Dr. Dave Williams who headed up the RIFA program at the Gainesville, FL USDA lab, which is the USDA headquarters for this program. Dave is now retired from the USDA but works out of an office in my Entomology Department at UF and is still involved with RIFA. Dave confirmed that RIFA is in VA and MD, but he had not heard of any large populations in the San Francisco area. He stated, "Maybe a few colonies have been found but to say that a large number of fire ants are in this area is not correct unless there has been a big change in the California RIFA populations that I'm not aware of." I still question the broad red brush for Arizona and New Mexico and would welcome official confirmation of this. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, there is a USDA October 2007 map for RIFA distribution: The page this comes from is at which lists New Mexico, but not Arizona, Maryland and Virginia under Latest Quarantine Changes (dated March 2008). Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me again. I contacted RIFA researchers and they told me something I should have known. There are political reason for not formally listing a state as having RIFA. I should have understood this as the same thing takes place regarding the Africanized bee. So Maryland and Virginia do have mounds, but these are not excessive in numbers right now. Same for New Mexico and the San Francisco area. However, the map depicted in the article showing a broad swath of red is not completely correct. Plus Arizona is not know to have RIFA as yet. I do not want to get involved in editing the article (at least not yet), as I have my own RIFA article to keep up, but care should be taken when reporting where the RIFA is.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, the map is not representative of fire ant distribution - there are no fire ants at all in northern New Mexico. The latest survey from the USDA is here: Being from the south, I know well what fire ants looks like, and can tell you the red areas on the map don't necessarily represent the fire ant range (I live well south of the red line on this map, and can tell you there are no fire ants between here and Colorado). I think a combination of the map I posted and the one posted above would be much more appropriate, with only confirmed ranges red. (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There are still many statements in the article which are counter-intuitive and ought really to have citations, e.g. "mounds appear suddenly, seemingly overnight"; "rarely life threatening" immediately before "80 deaths"; "apparently attracted to electrical equipment" followed by "not been found that electric or magnetic fields attract the ants". These are just examples, the article would benefit from many more inline cites than it currently has. DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red Ant Festival[edit]

I deleted the red ant festival and the link to the town's department of commerce website from the article because it is non-notable and was probably intended to promote the town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talkcontribs) 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Did the sources actually suggest pouring gasoline on anthills? If you see the Darwin Awards website, you would find out about all those people who died from accidents related to pouring gasoline in ant hills.

At least add in "while pouring gasoline in anthills, it should be noted that the person should not light a cigarette" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its now listed as a folk remedy and noted that it does no work. i have seen a somewhat similar tactic used to clear a field or temporally neutralize mounds. The technique utilizes a device that I've heard called "Brush flame throwers," "flame jets," and the most likely actual name "propellent-less flame thrower." The device works by using a fan or air pump, depending on the brand, to suck in massive amounts of air then force it through heated coils. The super heated air is ideally as hot of hotter as wood or gasoline fire, depending on the desired function. The air is then forced out of the nossel at high velocity. The device is used to insanely incinerate dry grass at a range of 6 ft. to safely create a no fuel zone around a bon fire or a fire that will be used to eliminate potential fuel for a brush fire, in order to stop the spread of said fire. Another way to use the "flame thrower" is against dry grass fields infested with RIFA. One takes the device and uses it for its intended purpose of creating a no-fuel-zone around the field, just incase there is unseen wood fuel in the field. Next one simply incinerates the grass in the field by sweeping the device along the ground. The field is now just ashes. Because there is no unburned food left in the field the ants will move, hopefully to an area where they will be less problematic. This also helps achieve the original goal of the flame thrower by eliminating potential brush fire fuel. Another way this device is used is to temporally neutralize the ant mounds so that the area where they were can be used safely for a short time In this method one locates the ant mounds then using a boot or shovel, crushes or partially crushes the mound. when the ants swarm one uses the device to kill them. Then one repeats the process of crushing then burning until nothing but a shallow dent remains. The ants will reemerge in 3-9 days but will be trapped until then. The reason the ants have trouble escaping is because the ants that died during the burning leave a dead shell. This shell is hard to dig out so it delays the ants. The reduced number of surface workers is also a factor. This method is only useful if your using an undeveloped plot of land for a short period of time, like a privately owned camp site. --Tsar bomber (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, my father did that one time when he was a kid in Texas. He burned up the pasture and nearly got the house on fire. You can bet how much trouble he was in when his parents got home... --Charlie Didear —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explanation for their success[edit]

S. invicta's success is largely debted to a genetic mechanism which occurs when a small number of individuals form a new, reproductively isolated population. The mechanism is called genetic bottleneck, and it leads to lower diversity of a gene which is associated with pheromones. Because introduced S. invicta lack diversity of pheromones (necessary to distinguish members of the own colony from foreigners!), they form supercolonies over large areas and show only negligible intraspecific aggression. (see this paper: In my opinion this should be included in the article. (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E.O. Wilson[edit]

It's a strong statement to say a 13-year-old boy, even if he later in life became an award-winning entomologist, was the first to identify the red ant as being imported to the US. Then, even if true, we need a reliable source, not an unverifiable lecture. So I tagged the statement as dubious.MartinezMD (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solenopsis invicta in the Philippines[edit]

I am trying to verify the Wikipedia account of Solenopsis invicta in the Philippines: “There have also been reports of colonies in metro Manila and the Province of Cavite in the Philippines since July 2005; however, since early 2007, they have spread now as far as the Bicol Region.”

The Manila and Cavite statement was added 12 November 2005 by “,” and the Bicol statement was added 11 March 2007 by “,” both anonymous sources. How do I contact these people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetterer (talkcontribs) 13:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't unless they chose to look here. Those are anonymous IP addresses and may or may not still be linked to the original person. I've tagged the sections with a couple of {{fact}} tags so future readers can be warned until we have a source.MartinezMD (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi all. I am currently participating in a school project to contribute to Wikipedia. I am learning a lot and would like to leave some comments regarding this article. Please feel free to respond.

The article on Solenopsis invicta is a B-class quality article of mid-importance. With a few edits, the article could be promoted to “Good Article” status. Several citations may be required: the first concerns the group killing of small animals, the 80 documented deaths, their spread to the Bicol region, and the use of fuel vapors in extermination. The article also has dated information that needs an update, such as the last sentence in the section about fire ant impacts in Australia. The section on the role of the ants as controls for pests also uses colloquial language and can be removed. I would also recommend an addition to this article by creating a paragraph describing the role of the queen ant in determining sex ratios. A study by Passera et al. (2001) involved switching queens from male and female producing colonies. This is one example of conflict between social insects.

GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am also participating in a school project.

The red imported fire ant apparently causes a lot of pain and trouble. Most of the article deals with its impact on the world, and the countermeasures to take against this species. If the colony is disturbed, the ants begin crawling on its victim. The first ant to attack releases pheromones, which drive the other ants to sting in concert. The article briefly mentions the discovery of a green-beard altruism gene. Comparing the book to the article, the article fails to mention the queen and its dominance in determining sex ratios. Luc Passera and colleagues discovered that by switching queens between male- and female-producing colonies, the sex ratios produced in a colony post-switching was predicted by the colony from which the queen came. Thus, a queen that came from a male-producing colony continues to produce more males in a colony that contains predominantly females. The queens do this by varying the proportion of its eggs—this forces the workers to rear only females. This study reflects the sex ratio conflict that constantly occurs in hymenopteran social insects. Under the Talk tab, there seems to be a lot of discussion over menial things, such as capitalization errors. There is also clarification for the USDA map where some states that do have mounds of red ants are considered to have excessive numbers, which appear to not be true (as some members pointed out). Alexliu818 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You two do realize you are more than capable of editing the article yourselves right?MartinezMD (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Alexliu818 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was in the impression that they didn't live anywhere in Europe but now there's Poland mentioned in the article as a place where they are a problem but without any further info. Is it for real that they are in Poland (and perhaps other European countries) or is that a bogus claim? Imploder (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need citations for Thailand and Philippine distribution records[edit]

I am not familiar with any verified reports of Solenopsis invicta (RIFA) having become established in Thailand or the Philippines. I wonder if these references are for the Tropical Red Fire Ant (S. geminata) instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndemik (talkcontribs) 21:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is quite possible; Wetterer (2013) could not confirm any reports from the Philippines, he even mentions that this Wikipedia article reported the species from the Philippines without a source! Article: Wetterer, James K. (2013). "Exotic spread of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) beyond North America". Sociobiology. 60: 53–63. jonkerztalk 03:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Behavior section[edit]

There was a large behavior section added, with no comment made on the talk page. Someone should have indicated that they made such a large edit. I also have some suggestions: I changed all of the S. invicta to Solenopsis invicta, as it is more proper according to wikipedia. This section of the article should be more well thought out. There is a behavior header followed immediately by a similar sized queen behavior section, and no uncategorized behavior comments present. This whole area needs to be cleaned up from a paragraph and section structure standpoint. JSDavis2 (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added hyperlinks and images. Rosemaryshanley (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference fixing[edit]

I have noticed that multiple references are just plain links, and to be honest it doesn't make the article look exactly the best, so I'll be fixing them in advance just to improve the article and its general appearance. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Off-topic content[edit]

Ugggggg, I do not enjoy removing large chunks of content written by other editors, but the removed sections (written by students from Washington University) strayed too far away from the topic. I hope you understand. jonkerztalk 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diffs: [1], [2]. jonkerztalk 13:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I intend on expanding this article once I have dealt with other ones. This species is perhaps the most studied insect in the world, and basically every aspect about it is known. Seeing it is very well studied, I think a long high quality article is needed. Will be fixing up references again as a start. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I would like to see is an explanation of army ant behavior. As a child I witnessed "Superhighways" encompassing 6-7 mounds crossing 3 yards. Only a kid can crawl through 3 neighbors yards tracking ants and they learn things others miss.

Interesting stuff, but for now that would only be aimed at Dorylinae ants, since that subfamily encompasses the army ants. I'll look into it when I focus on them. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student Review[edit]

I felt that a category describing the size, shape and distinguishable characters of the species could have been included. The category discussing their morphology is fairly vague and leaves out many of their distinct traits. A category discussing their housing (i.e. how nests are built, building materials) would also be useful in determining the most viable environments for successful ant colonies. A category explicitly stating the nature of reproduction and egg maintenance could be included and would give a more in-depth insight into the structure and social function of the colony. Cratermann(talk) 21:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better Pictures[edit]

The picture of a scanned queen RIFA in the morphology section is too small to clearly see the ant’s details. A larger high quality version should replace it. Xerylium(talk) 22:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Xerylium, only saw your post now. A bit late perhaps, but I have replaced the image with a better one. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Construction begins[edit]

As part of my "big 5" project, the construction (or so to speak reconstruction) of this article has already commenced. I have visually pictured the content layout for the article, so please be considerate with my intentions. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intended layout[edit]

Here is my planned layout for the article:

  • Etymology and common names Green tickY Done
  • Taxonomy Green tickY Done
    • Phylogeny Green tickY Done
    • Genetics Green tickY Done
  • Description Green tickY Done
    • Brood Green tickY Done
    • Polymorphism Green tickY Done
    • Physiology Green tickY Done
  • Distribution and habitat Green tickY Done
    • Introductions Green tickY Done
  • Behaviour and ecology Green tickY
    • Foraging and communication Green tickY Done
    • Diet Green tickY Done
    • Predators Green tickY Done
    • Parasites, pathogens and viruses Green tickY
    • Life cycle and reproduction Green tickY Done
    • Monogyny and polygyny Green tickY Done
    • Relationship with other organisms Green tickY Done
  • Toxicology Green tickY Done
    • Venom Green tickY Done
    • Incidence Green tickY Done
    • Signs and symptoms Green tickY Done
    • Treatment Green tickY Done
    • Stings to animals Green tickY Done
  • Relationship with humans Green tickY Done
    • As pests Green tickY Done
    • In agriculture Green tickY Done
    • Control Green tickY Done
    • Economic impact?
  • See also Green tickY
  • Notes Green tickY
  • References Green tickY
    • Cited literature Green tickY
  • External links Green tickY

Seems decent at this point. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re "Economic impact?": seems like this would be a good addition to the article. Not sure where to put it though. Suggestion: create a stub for Pseudacteon (known as "ant-decapitating fly" according to Phoridae#Control_of_fire_ants), because I just red-linked that page. jonkerztalk 14:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking of putting it under relationship with humans, but had confliction with "introductions". Also added a paragraph about its communication, particularly the role of pheromones in defence and foraging and other thingys; this is why I made a minor alteration to the layout. For Pseudacteon, I will look into creating an article for it. Should the content there be moved into its respective article, as in the genus? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could also be subsectioned under 'Introductions', to avoid repeating what's already there. Or make 'Introductions' a top-level heading and nest 'Economic impact' and 'Countermeasures' under that one, because as far as I know the RIFA is only a nuisance where it's not native. Or put it under 'Relationship with humans', or whichever you think is best. I suppose it will be easier to make a decision once you've fleshed out the rest of the sections, and there will be some duplication either way.
For Pseudacteon, if all of the content referred to the genus only I'd move it the genus article, but the sentences that specifically mention Pseudacteon are unreferenced, and it's not clear whether the rest of the section applies to all phorid flies or just Pseudacteon. I don't know anything about this, although it sounds like the refs describe Pseudacteon. Creating a brand new substub would also be OK, but the RIFA article is way more important, so there's no hurry. This is just so very mean: "Eventually, the larvae completely devour the ant's brain, causing it to do nothing but wander aimlessly for about two weeks.", heh. jonkerztalk 06:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we should just add all the content in that follows the respective layout for now and do further modifications through discussion. By then we'll have a clear idea of how the article should appropriately structure itself. For Pseudacteon, I'll do a little research on them after finishing this off and see what we have. I noticed a public domain image from the United States Department of Agriculture illustrating a fly hatching out of an ants head. That would make a nice illsutration. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work will recommence[edit]

Just letting editors know that major work to this article will recommence soon. I will solely focus on this and get it to GA status after I have finished with the Green-head ant review. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just realised this will need some serious copyediting... After I finish that is! Burklemore1 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA1 comments[edit]

Comments by jonkerz[edit]

@Burklemore1: I'm not able to do a full review, but here are a bunch of comments, some of which are closer to FA criteria than GA criteria. I decided to put the comments here, because creating the nom page would effectively hide the page from the list of open nominations. jonkerztalk 03:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Lead
    • "described ... as a variant in 1916. The name S. invicta was given to the ant in 1972 by American entomologist William Buren who believed that he had described a new species. However, the variant and species were the same ant. Although S. invicta is not the original ants' name, it was preserved due to its wide use.", too much details too early

Chopped a little bit off.

  • Section 'Polymorphism'
    • "... polymorphism is not an advantage or disadvantage when food sources are limited. However, ... under conditions where food is limited, polymorphism may provide a small advantage in brood production but this depends on the levels of food stress.", looks like a "not" is missing from "food sources are limited"


  • Section 'Distribution and habitat'
    • "In particular, they are found in cultivated land, managed forests and plantations, disturbed areas, intensive livestock production systems, and greenhouses.", these are all environments created by humans, and without having read the sources it sounds like either 1) a qualifier such as "nests in human habitats" is missing, or 2) the study is very biased.
    • "The mean size of ants in a single subterranean chamber is around 200 individuals.", should't it be "number"?

Oops, done.

  • Section 'Introductions'
    • "Currently, the ant is found in 13 states ...", no date


  • Section 'Behaviour and ecology'
    • "confirmed by Blum (1970)", there's no Blum (1970) in the reference section
    • "Pupae infected by Metarhizium anisopliae ...", it's not obvious that this a species of fungus
  • Section'Foraging and communication'
    • "Workers prefer to dig into nest materials from their own colony and not from soil in unnested areas or from other red imported fire ant colonies. One study suggests that as a colony's diet is similar, the only difference between nested and unnested soil was the nesting of the ants themselves.", not sure I understand this
  • Section 'Predators'
  • Section 'Parasites, pathogens and viruses'
    • "Pathogens include Myrmecomyces annellisae, Mattesia, Steinernema, a mermithid nematode, Vairimorpha invictae ...", it's unclear what type of organisms these taxa are
  • Section 'Life cycle and reproduction'
    • "These workers are known as minims nanitics" --> "minims (nanitics)", or "minims (or nanitics)", or "minims, or nanitics", etc
  • Section 'Monogyny and polygyny'
    • "The monogynous red imported fire ant colony territorial area", too many words in a row, if that makes sense
  • Section 'Venom'
    • "trans-2-Methyl-6-n-tridecylpiperidine, trans-2-Methyl-6-(cis-4-tridecenyl)" maybe lowercase m? It's lowercase the other times 'methyl' occurs trapped between a bunch of, seemingly random, letters and digits. I've no idea actually, I'm not a chemist as you probably have figured out by now...
      • On a second note, ignore this. It's not worth the effort. jonkerztalk 03:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Section 'As pests'
    • "In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration estimates more than $5 billion is spent annually on medical treatment, damage, and control in infested areas. They can also cause $2.5 billion in damages annually in just 20 years.", not sure I understand this
    • "In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration estimates more than $5 billion is spent annually ... In Texas alone, red imported fire ants caused $300 million in damages ... Private agencies spend $25 to $40 million ... based on a Queensland government study, the estimated cost could reach $43 billion over 30 years.", many numbers, but no years
  • Section 'In agriculture'
    • "The ants are known to invade soybean crops causing lower yields, and could cause $156 million in losses for soybean crops in the southeastern United States", no year/timespan
This was unexpected, thank you for the comments. I'll get onto them at a convenient time which should be soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 22:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Good formating
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).
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. Definitely
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Some stuff must be cut, unfortunately. The Distribution section lead and some parts of Toxicology should be cut in order to make the article more concise and readable.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Difficult not to be neutral
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Minor vandalism back in August but no edit wars, etc. since 1000 edits ago.
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.

The article is quite long and looks very detailed. Lots of work put in! Gug01 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lead and etymology sections are flawless, but I have a few suggestions for taxonomy. You may want to include the "social chromosome" section in Behavior as well since it pertains more to the behavior than the genetics, and the general language of the "Genetics" section in Taxonomy should be less technical to make the article more accessible. Gug01 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section Behaviour and Ecology, Paragraph 1: "Before submerging, the ants will tip themselves into the water and sever connections with the dry land. In some cases, workers may deliberately remove all males from the raft, resulting in drowning." Who is drowning? The male ants or the entire raft?

Thank you very much for reviewing this article and feedback. I'll address your concerns in one moments time! Burklemore1 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In regards to your last comment, it refers to males drowning. I have made a minor edit to the sentence. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for taking so long, I have had no time for Wikipedia lately. I will get onto this shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status update[edit]

@Burklemore1 and Gug01: Not much activity here for nearly two months. Is there any way I can help advance this review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talkcontribs) 07:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Burklemore1 and Gug01: Redoing the ping, since the lack of initial sig above will have prevented the pings from going out. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try and get on with this tomorrow. I have been unable to edit Wikipedia for the past months because of work and other activities, but I can make time. Thanks for the notification. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Burklemore1: Gug01 has not edited anywhere since 11 February. I'm happy to complete the long-delayed job now, if that is agreeable to you? Some comments follow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chiswick Chap I'm okay with that, thank you for the offer! Burklemore1 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completing the review[edit]

  • Nom stated (3b) that "Some stuff must be cut, unfortunately. The Distribution section lead and some parts of Toxicology should be cut in order to make the article more concise and readable." I think he's right on Distribution and Toxicology, if not other places too; I'm not sure if he intended to say "the article's lead" but it's rather a lot at 800 words and four chunky paragraphs. The length of the lead does reflect the article's length, which at 246,000 bytes is basically far too much - pasted into Word (without refs) it is 36 pages and nearly 17,000 words: it would take several hours to read. This suggests to me that we should split the article. Clearly this may be uncomfortable, but we should aim at something closer to 100,000 bytes as a reasonable maximum, following policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Following Gug01's comment on Toxicology, I'd suggest we make that section a new (subsidiary) article, leaving a brief (one paragraph) summary and a "main" link behind. That will save about 5 pages, 2000 words. I note in passing that the section strays into advice and how-to, against policy: "Ants should be removed by washing the area with antiseptic soap..." Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Following Gug01's comment on Distribution and habitat, that section is about 4 pages, 1800 words, and contains a longish section on Introductions. Again, this could be split off as a new subsidiary article, leaving a brief summary (a para on distribution, a para on introductions, with a main and a see also link respectively). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(These two splits will reduce the article by 1/4, down to about 27 pages)

  • Further reductions by splitting are less obvious. The Relationship with humans section is 1400 words, over 2 pages; it might be worth splitting out, again leaving a paragraph of summary and a main link. (about 25 pages remaining) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given that the article will still be very long after these actions, I suggest we need to look at whether everything that is said in the article is actually necessary. Some statements are surely generic - trophic eggs, instars, arguments about kin selection, ... and could be shortened significantly. The Monogyny and polygyny section for example could be cut down sharply: for instance "However, not all behaviours are universal, primarily because worker behaviours depend on the ecological context in which they develop, and the manipulation of worker genotypes can elicit change in behaviours. Therefore, behaviours of native populations can differ from those of introduced populations." -- perhaps all we need here is "Introduced populations may behave differently." In short, I suggest a vigorous pruning throughout the article, to focus on what is unique about this ant, and to say that as briefly as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I must note I will be inactive for awhile so future edits in relation to this GA may be slightly delayed (as they are already, but work comes first unfortunately). With this being said I will try and edit as much as I can for the upcoming days. Thanks again. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry to say this but I don't think it's worth waiting any longer. The article needs some careful editing, and that will take more effort than is currently available. I'm reluctantly closing this review now. There is material here for one or more good articles, and with appropriate focus, GA status will readily be achieved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Red imported fire ant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of refs in opening section[edit]

This article's opening section contains a substantial amount of text and a significant lack of references. I am not an experienced Wikipedia user so can someone with greater knowhow please add a box at the top indicating that the articles requires more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]