Talk:Macropis nuda

Insects Stub‑class Low‑importance

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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): Wdsieling (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Allykunze, Tefrancis, Khan.nadia.

Comments

I really liked how this entry was laid out – I found the organization to make sense and flow well. I made a few grammatical changes, such as italicizing the species name in the mating behavior section. I also corrected a few spelling mistakes and I changed the wording in the a few paragraphs slightly. Generally, I changed sentences around a little to make the entry flow better. I think that it would be beneficial for the last sentence of the mating behavior section to be cited, as there were several sentences without citations in a row. This article would greatly benefit from added information about distribution, habitat, and nests. Overall, there is a lot of room for expansion upon the topics discussed. I thought the entry did a good job of describing a lot of general points about the species, but would benefit greatly from added information to each topic. Allykunze —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

This article has a lot of good information that covers a wide spectrum of information. The way that it was laid out was very logical and easy to follow along. There should definitely be some hyperlinks added to this article for the less intuitive words like oligolectic so the reader can have a way to figure out what some of these words mean. This article could use more on the habitat part of the Distribution and Habitat section. If there is any more information to be added to this article, I think that would benefit the article greatly since it seems to be a lot of basic information about everything. Also, if there is information to be found about human interaction, that would be interesting to add as well. An explanation on how the parasites are cuckoos would also be helpful. Do they try to use the food already there, lay their eggs with the female bees, etc. Tefrancis (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

This is a very well written article that provides a lot of great information and seems well researched. The layout and organization of the page is really good and I thought that everything flowed very nicely. I made a few minor grammatical error fixes throughout the article. I found it very interesting how the species uses floral oils that the female collects as a waterproof lining for nests and cells for the offspring. The development section was very informative and you gave a lot of information on mating behavior. I think the page could benefit from a communication subsection under "Behavior" as well as a section examining the colony cycle of the species. Additionally, perhaps you could expand on the distribution and habitat section. Overall, great job! Khan.nadia (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts

Good job on this article! I appreciate the range map and images present in the description and identification section of the article as they help in illustrating your points very well. I changed the capitalization of two of your headings to comply with the Wikipedia standards. Moreover, I added appropriate citations to the opening and taxonomy sections where there was not previously a cited source. I appreciated the thorough discussion of behavior, specifically the different foraging behaviors between males and females. I’d like to see some more information on the specie’s diet and defense strategies. I believe the addition of these two sections would lend very well to your article which is already quite rich in behavior.Mebennett49 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Mebennett49[reply]

Peer review

I believe this to be a strong, well written article. It is formatted in a clear and concise manner. I especially liked the inclusion images of the male and the female separately in order to help the reader distinguish the two. I sought to help edit the grammar of this article, editing typos and the flow in order to enhance the article. I also linked terms such as Lysimachia, oligolectic, and larvae, in order to help clarify terms that the viewer may not have previously encountered. I think this article could be improved by adding the significance of this species to humans, explaining their conservation status and relevance to the modern world. As mentioned in the comments above, further expansion on some of these topics will make the article more thorough and detailed, but I think it is a great beginning and follows the components required for a good Wikipedia article. Well done! Paanur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I added a link for the word “loosestrife,” as that is not a common term at all. I also added a link for the word “homeostatic,” as someone without a more extensive knowledge of biology may not know what it means. In nest description, I changed the last sentence so that it did not sound as repetitive. Under life cycle, I’m a bit confused as to what you mean by “the eggs are capable of hibernating,” as hibernation is typically something I think of animals doing, so I think this could use some clarification. Overall, the article feels a bit sparse and could use some more information, although I understand that some species simply don’t have much literature about them. Mandeljulia (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]