Talk:Euglossa cordata

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eliseoh (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Narayanan anagha, Callisons.

New Edits

Hi, I'm a student at Washington University in St. Louis editing this page. Thank you for letting me contribute to this article! I have added multiple sections on Taxonomy and Phylogeny, Description and Appearance, Distribution and Habitat, Colony Cycle, Parasites, and multiple sections on Behavior. Eliseoh (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Hello! I am an undergraduate student at Washington University in St. Louis and I am editing this article regarding Euglossa cordata to improve the content.

The introduction is pretty short and I think a few quick and interesting facts about the bee would greatly improve this section. As a result, I added a quick fact about the distinguishing characteristics of the bee and added a reference. “This particular species can fly long distances, males disperse very frequently, there is evidence of female philopatric behavior.”

The taxonomy and phylogeny section was well-written and I liked it a lot because there was a lot of information regarding the origin of the species. I wasn’t sure why the last sentence was included because that is more of a description of the species rather than about the taxonomy or phylogeny. Should you maybe move this fact?

The distribution and habitat section was well-written with a lot of information regarding the distribution. If you can, I would add a little more about the habitat because I am still unsure of what type of environment this bee thrives in. There isn’t anything about what type of climate or weather this bee can live in and if it is indeed adaptable.

The behavior section was very well-written, but there is a lot of information about the Euglossa and not enough about the specific species itself. I think a little bit more research should go far in the completeness of the article. The dominance hierarchy is a little bit hard to understand because of the foreign words that the author uses. I think the reader will find this a lighter and easier read if some of the terms are defined.

Overall, this was a good article with a lot of new information regarding the bee. Great read!Junsang.cho (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Edits

Overall, I thought it was very well-written and concise. Below are my recommendations that I gave, but beyond a few grammar errors, I thought the article was very informative and easy to read.

Recommendations: • In the first paragraph, the sentence: “This particular species can fly long distances, males disperse very frequently, there is evidence of female philopatric behavior,” is choppy and hard to understand • In the first paragraph of the Pollination section, I would describe “some substance” a little more. If it is unknown, even saying that the reason/substance is unknown might help. • Explain how being totipotent affects the colony and breeding and how it fits into dominance hierarchy. • For Parasites, it may be helpful, if available, to explain any defense mechanisms that E. cordata uses or how the parasite effects the nest. Callisons (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Edits

Good article! I would watch out for grammar especially. I changed a few cases where tenses did not match, or where the number for your nouns and articles did not match. I also de-italicized the names of genera and anything higher order, which is in accordance to wikipedia's style guide on this matter. I linked "philopatry" as well - this is an interesting behavior, and should be explained sufficiently in the article as well. I also think there should be an additional section on kin recognition, for future reference and edits. As much as possible, I also believe that you should edit the description section to define your terms, and make it less dense for the lay person. Ways you could do this might be to expand on ideas, simply by saying things like "the gonostylus, or male phallus" etc. This will improve readability significantly. Narayanan anagha (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

Overall, I think this article is quite good. Your research seems quite thorough, and you covered a fairly wide variety of areas. However, I think your writing style could use some slight adjustments to make it more encyclopedia friendly. There are quite a lot of long, complicated sentences in this article. I would recommend you try to break up these clauses into short, simple sentences. Additionally, I think foraging should be moved to a subsection of behavior rather than being a lone heading at the end. Mandeljulia (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)