Talk:Schwarziana quadripunctata

	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).

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): Cratermann. Peer reviewers: Cmbakwe, Wdsieling, Sayabery, Brandon.eng, KimCourtney, Raymundo.marcelo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

There is a lot of great information here, it was very well written, and there was a lot of good research done. I helped make some hyperlinks actually go to the useful pages like Amédéé Louis Michel le Peletier. I also got rid of extra hyperlinks like with Brazil, Argentina, Africanized honeybees, and hydrocarbons and added some hyperlinks especially in the Diet section. I would also add a link citing where it says that the decline of S. quadripunctata will continue into the future (under Distribution and Habitat). Under the titles Behavior and Kin Selection, I would add a summary or overview of the entire section to help the reader better grasp what they will read. I also made some areas clearer like “(both queen, dwarf, and worker)” to “(queen, dwarf, or worker)”. Overall though, it is a well-done article needing only minor tweaks. Raymundo.marcelo (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided in this article for each section shows a great balance among the material on Schwarziana quadripunctata in general and the language was coherent and organized. For corrections, I added hyperlinks to some terms, such as "eusocial", "thorax", "ecological niche", and "larvae" so that references to outside information can be made. I also removed extra hyperlinks to the same terminology that appeared throughout the article; since one hyperlink was already made, it is redundant to include extra hyperlinks. With respect to grammatical errors, I changed “of” to “from” in the first paragraph when describing the size of the bee since a range of sizes is included. I also added “and” between “size” and “weight” in the first paragraph of “Description of Identification.” To increase behavioral content in the article, it would be beneficial to add more information on inter-species interactions; specifically, more research on the parasites and predators of Schwarziana quadripunctata could be conducted to add to the enriching material presented. In general, though, this article is very good! Cmbakwe (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with a really thorough and balanced article on Schwarziana quadripunctata. Many of the minor adjustments were already done, I think further things that could be added to this article would be around interspecies interactions; about predation, and perhaps how stingless bees behave differently against predation compared to bees/wasps with stingers. In the Description and Identification section, I added the sentence "Colonies contain a larger queen with greater fecundity than dwarf queens, causing the size discrepancy between the two," to differentiate queens and dwarf queens earlier in the article. User:Wdsieling (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2015

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! This article is very well written and covers both substance and breadth. However, I would like to make one minor comment on your writing. Remember that you are writing for Wikipedia, not a class essay (though this appears to be a class assignment). As such, I would recommend that you avoid writing in the style of "For instance, in 2009 Nunes et al..." This is a bit clunky for Wikipedia and many readers just want to know the facts. If they want to know the source of your facts they can check that in your citations. Essentially, you are double citing parts of your article. Other than that, your article is off to a great start! Brandon.eng (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits for Class

This page has an extensive amount of information in each section that the author decided to focus on, with very solid scientific data backing up the information. I noticed that the description heading was coded for incorrectly and therefore did not show up properly, so I went ahead and fixed that. I added some hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages in order to make it easier for someone reading to understand some of the scientific terms. I also noticed that sometimes, the direct study from which you got your information was cited in the sentence, and I feel like this is unnecessary since there is a citation and reference at the end of the sentence. I'm not sure if you feel comfortable doing so, but I think that written citing can be removed in order to improve the flow of the writing. Overall, there is so much great information and I learned a lot! Sayabery (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and comments

This page was very well written with a lot of detailed information on the bee species. I especially liked how you incorporated a good number of different scientific studies to introduce information. There was not very much to edit. However, I added “Bees” and “Nests” subsections under the “Description” section in order to make it easier for the readers to find specific topics. Also, I would add description of male bees under the “Description” section if you can find it. Lastly, I noted places where I think citation is needed. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this page. Great job!KimCourtney (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cody, great work on this entry! The article is very well-written, and it's clear that you have done a lot of research on this animal. I especially enjoyed the section discussing magnetoreception, interesting stuff! Your article really didn't need much editing, and so I simply went through and tried to find terms to link. I ended up linking "fecundity" in the Bees section and "oviposition" in the Mating Behavior section. I wanted to link the other bees species described in the Taxonomy section, but they don't have Wikipedia articles yet and so I found it pointless. Also, "eusocial" was linked twice, so I removed the link in the Bees section but kept it in the introduction. Liz.yucknut (talk) 7:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, this article was informative and the informative was very detailed. There were however, quite a few spelling and grammar issues. For instance, I corrected the species name, which was misspelled in the first sentence of the article. I’d recommend reading it once more for spelling and grammar. As well, the first time you mention a specific species I think its best to give its full name. I fixed this in the Taxonomy and phylogeny section for the species Schwarziana mourei. This article was really well cited, with 16 references and citations after every fact. It would have been nice to include a few more images in the body of the article itself. The Navigation section was extensive and super interesting! I’d suggest including some of that information in the introduction as well. Kevin.george1 (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I made a few editions, such as taking out the definition of glands from the article as “gland” was already linked. I also edited a few grammatical aspects of the article, but overall I felt there was very little work that needed done. Nice work! Allykunze —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Overall a strong article from a clearly clever and capable scholar. The information regarding the labor roles within the colony as well as the discussion of conflicts between workers and queens was comprehensive and did a good job of explaining the reasons behind these behaviors rather than just stating them. The only significant improvement that I can think of to do would be to include a section with information about colony initiation and the building of the nest, since you mentioned that the subterranean nesting was a distinctive behavior of this bee. This would help in your mission of not only describing the bee, but of detailing the traits and behaviors that set it apart from its relatives. Good work and I am excited to see continued improvement of this article. Melliott132 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final Review

Cody, you truly lived up to your title of “writing expert.” I found this article to be an incredibly smooth and enjoyable read. Your sections all had substantial information that was always explained clearly and concisely. Furthermore, the amount of blue in your article from all of the external links was a joy to see. Clearly you follow instructions well and it definitely paid off. You could benefit from more images throughout your article, but I understand the copyright limitations and just the difficulty in finding images of these bees and their nests without going to Brazil or Paraguay. One other area of improvement could be your introduction. While it contains great information, you could include some of the more unique aspects of these bees in order to really captivate your audience right at the start such as their underground death trap nests. I have enjoyed being your “Wikipedia Expert” this past semester and look forward to your future, insightful contributions you will make for the wikipedia community. Best of luck in life. Mira.tbaum (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]