Talk:Chrysis ignita

Some Suggestions

This article is very strong. Particularly, I felt that your categories were well researched and provided useful and interesting facts about Chrysis ignita. While there were not many grammatical changes to be made, I corrected a couple spelling mistakes and combined some shorter sentences throughout to make the article flow better. I also have a couple additional suggestions. Firstly, the biggest issue with your article is the citation style. While your sources are in the proper places, being unable to link to the articles you used is a problem. Since researchers often use these primary sources to get a better understanding of more advanced topics, a proper citation format needs to be added to your page. By fixing your citation style, I believe that your article will appear more credible and have more authority. Another suggestion I have is to increase your description about what an ovipositor is. While the information you provided on the topic is very detailed, this section could use a one or two sentence introduction explaining what this term means. Similarly, the body armor section could use a brief description of what the body armor is made of, not just what it does. Overall, this article is already complete and useful. I hope by implementing my suggestions your article cam be make even better. Amanda.Kalupa (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel you wrote a very well-organized and complete article. However, I do have a couple suggestions. As mentioned by another user, your references section needs to be formatted correctly. The main article page flags this and should be fixed in order to give credibility to your article. In addition, I added linked some key words in your article to other Wikipedia pages (ex. Aculeate) and added an image of your wasp to the page. My final suggestion is to decide how you want to spell kleptoparasites/cleptoparasites. Choosing one way and being consistent will make your article even stronger. Dkrinock (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

More suggestions

Hey Alex! These are possible areas of improvement: Once again, I must remind you that in headings, only the first word and proper nouns need to be capitalized. For all titles except “Parasitism,” “Morphology,” “Head,” “Face,” “Abdomen,” “Coloration,” and “Ovipositor,” this needs to be changed. For example, “Infiltration and Egg Deposition” should be changed to “Infiltration and egg deposition.” Your article desperately needs more links to other articles! Make a link like this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, or use the beta editor to make a quick link. Try to get as much of the jargon linked up to other articles as you can. There are many opportunities to add more links to other articles, especially for interesting vocabulary words, concepts, and proper nouns. Sections without any links that need some are: “Sex Distinction,” “Distribution and Habitat,” “Infiltration and Egg Deposition,” “Parasitism,” “Head,” “Face,” “Abdomen,” “Coloration,” “Body Armor and Strategies,” “Ovipositor,” “Moericke Trap,” “Sight-Hunting,” “Accessory Nuclei,” “Cajal Bodies Homologues,” “Mitochondrial Phylogeny,” “Anal Teeth and Phylogeny,” and “Chemical Mimicry.” You can add more to “Taxonomy and Phylogeny” by discussing the history of how this species was named. Who named it, and when? Were there any changes made to its name or classification over time? You could also go into the implications of the other taxonomic classifications for this species. For “Description and Identification,” you could also go further and describe the physical characteristics of workers, pupae, and eggs. If you can find the information on this you can also go into a description of their anatomy, hydrocarbons, and life stages (egg, larva, pupa, adult). You can also talk about the physical features that distinguish adults, how workers differ from queens and adult males. For “Distribution and Habitat,” you can add a map of the distribution for this species and/or compare the distribution with the distribution of other local or regional wasps nearby. Overall, cool article! It was interesting to read! Compliments on your thoroughness and beautiful organization! :) Carzhong (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The entry does a good job of splitting of the sections into distinct and small parts. With the amount of detail that is given for Morphology, it is helpful that it was split up into subsections so that it doesn’t get too long or confusing. The entry also stays very neutral and has straightforward language and sentence structure. What I found most interesting was how the wasp uses unique strategies to not only protect itself, but also ensure its offspring’s survival. Some additional categories to include could be information on larva development, which may be important to include since the larva has to stay undetected by the host. Additionally, reproductive and mating habits should be mentioned since this is generally something that can give insight into a species’ habits. Another category that could be worth mentioning is Predators, which is an important aspect to know if you want to learn about a species. User: Callisons —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Recommendations

Overall great article! I really enjoyed how clear your image is-- really pretty wasp! One minor change that I made was in your overview section, you forgot to italicize Chrysis ignita in the last sentence. I also noticed that a lot of words are not linked in your entry. Try to link more words to help readers gain a better understanding of the species. Also, in order to avoid the possibility of having a monotone, try to vary your sentence structures a bit; under the description and identification section, the last three sentences all started with “the X…” Lastly, a few of your sub sections are very short. Consider, if possible, adding more information or combining two sections together.

Elee715 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello! Great article, a really interesting read. I just made a few minor changes throughout, starting with bolding the common name of your wasp in your overview section. I think this will help draw peoples attention and let them know they are in the right place. Your ovipositor section is really interesting, but a little confusing. I wasn’t sure what “after several repetitions, she will succeed” was referring to. Maybe just add in a clarifying sentence or two. You have a lot of really interesting sections! I especially enjoyed your sections on research methods. You may think about adding some photos to these sections, to give a clear view of what you mean by each of the structures. A distribution map may also be a good idea if there is one available, or if you can easily make one. Overall, it was a really good and interesting article! Kirinne (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)