Talk:Halictus sexcinctus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Mandeljulia. Peer reviewers: Marcus.kwon, Megxb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments 11/17/15

I made some minor grammar edits to make the page flow better. I would recommend making your antimicrobial properties paragraph clearer. I had a hard time following it, and I think other readers might too. Overall you have a lot of good information! Courtney.cleveland (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

Hello, I am an undergraduate student at Washington University in St. Louis editing this page for a class assignment. For this article, I started a critical section which was missing, on ‘Mating Behavior’. I created this as a subsection under ‘Behavior’ and did some research, reusing a source listed in the Reference Section, and citing it. Mating behavior is important because it helps explain how this bee species sexually reproduces via the Queen/Drone interaction, which would also clarify how a Queen may sexually select from the drones (male bees). I was only able to add information about behavior in which female H. sexcinctus behave differently largely depending on whether or not these foundresses are inseminated. Specific information on mating behavior between male drones and female queens is still needed. Overall, this is a promising start for an article, keep up the good work! Marcus.kwon (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Overall, this article did a great job in engaging the reader with its writing style. I found the article very informative and clear to understand with its word choice and organization. I did make some improvements to the word choice, however. In the overview, I changed “aggression between females is low to non-existent” to “aggression between females is little to non-existent”. I also got rid of the quote in the “Social polymorphism” section, which was “H. sexcinctus arguably represents the most extreme degree of intraspecific social polymorphism in insects” and reworded it to “may possibly be the most extreme example of intraspecific social polymorphism among insects” because I felt that it followed the Wikipedia style to stay away from direct quotes without a specific person as the speaker. Megxb (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This article was very thorough and complete - well researched. There are a few things that I will note. I changed some of the grammar, and flow of the sentences. Some of these sentences tended to run long. The clarity and precision benefited from the sentences being broken apart. I also added a link to the term "gyne" which is used several times but never defined within the context of the article. Additionally, I added a missing citation. Every fact must be cited, even if it has been cited earlier in the same paragraph. The last thing that I might suggest is that you add sections on adult communication and kin recognition. There does appear to be literature about it, though much of it is to be found in books. Overall, this is a great start! Narayanan anagha (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article had a little more edits needed than the previous articles, but was a good and informative read. I got rid of the second sentence in the introduction that talks about who discovered this specie and when it was discovered because that information can just be found in the box to the right. I also made some grammatical changes throughout the article to make it flow better because it was very sporadic in its writing. I thought the intro was also too long and contained information that could be placed into the body of the article. As a result, I moved the second paragraph of the introduction to Description and Identification section and titled it Social Description. I did this because the paragraph would nicely foreshadow some of the information in the behavior sections. Additionally, I added multiple links to the article including the following terms: overwintering, eclosion, mandible, and hemolytic. Overall, I thought this article was a good article with a lot of potential. If the editor makes a few more changes, I believe it can be upgraded to “good article” status. Junsang.cho (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)