Talk:Leipomeles dorsata

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Peer Review[edit]

This is a nice article! Somethings I changed; I put nonfirst letters in section headings into lowercase,added an apostrophe where one was missing,removed excess spacing under Interaction with other species and before the external links, and I rearticulated several phrases to improve clarity. The intro could probably include more varied information, and I was not totally sure what was going on with how a wasp turns from brown to yellow, since that seems to have to happen at some point.

I am a little confused as to what enables wasps to be brown or yellow in the When you use the word robust in the reproductive suppression section, I’m not sure what you mean by it. Annamargit (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

This article was a great start with what seems like a good amount of research with many references. With that said, I thought the content of the article was slightly vague and somewhat randomly distributed within the sections. For example, I thought the ‘Overview’ had some random facts that were too specific for an introductory section. In terms of structure and organization, I felt like the current sections are good starts and perhaps the content within each section could be a bit more flushed out, as mentioned before. Specifically speaking, I made the ‘External links’ section a numbered list and added the course banner to the ‘Talk’ page. Writing was my main focus and I found many grammatical mistakes, especially misused commas, which I went ahead and corrected. In addition, I revised a handful of sentences throughout the article. In particular, the 3 sentences listed below need to be corrected by the author, as the content conveyed was unclear. Good start, but needs to be flushed out a bit more.

1. The stage in this cycle that is based on the number of brown versus yellow egg layers in a colony. (Comment: This is a fragment.)

2. This occurs when a colony is deprived of its yellow egg layers, the brown workers are signaled to become replacements, an example of cyclical oligogny.(Comment: This is unclear and needs to be worded better and more concisely.)

3. In many species that employ this method, the small size of the wasps requires alternate defense systems rather than aggression, things like chemical defense and large numbers of adults at the foundational stage. (Comment: This sentence is unclear and needs to be reworded better and more concisely. Consider splitting this sentence into two.) Sandyamuchimilli (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Suggestions[edit]

You have a good start to your article, but I think that it can be improved.

I shifted the “External links” section from before the “References” section to after the reference list so that they would be in proper order.
You should cite the last sentence in the “Worker queen conflict” section in order to avoid any unintended plagiarism.
I corrected a few grammar mistakes; however, there are still wording and grammar issues with the article as a whole. The author should consider returning to the article for a revision.
Overall, the article should be extended to have more information in each section, or the sections should be condensed into fewer headings so that it flows more smoothly. The information found in the article is presented in short, choppy sections and oftentimes the sentences are very abrupt and choppy as well.
- For example, certain sections (especially the “Diet” and “Camouflage” sections) need to be expanded.
  - Diet section is only 1 sentence. Camouflage is only 2 sentences. Additional content is necessary for reader to get a good understanding of the species and its particular behaviors.
In addition, the author should consider expanding the overview section once they’ve expanded the rest of the article. Marecto (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Hey! I know it was hard to collect enough source material, but here are some things you could probably do with the information you already have. (Except for the first thing I'm about to mention.) I think that the physical description of the wasp could be more thorough. What is physically distinctive between the castes beyond color, and what does the wasp look like in general? You could expand on on reproductive suppression which is only two sentences right now. You would not have to do more research, you could just give generic background about expected genetic relatedness between workers and their sons, and why worker policing is therefore beneficial when there are more queens. You might also have enough information on pheromones and trails to create a communication section. I reworded some sentences. I replaced the second sentence in colony cycle which I put here for the author to clarify: “The stage in this cycle that is based on the number of brown versus yellow egg layers in a colony.” I also condensed diet and predators into one section. Micah.Steinbrecher (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]