Talk:Polistes austroccidentalis

	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).

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Hi all, I've been developing this article over the past few weeks and as it's my first article I'd very much appreciate feedback. Please let me know how I can improve this article and I'll do my best to edit it. Thanks! Ruaha (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 4 Comments[edit]

First off, I edited the grammar of this article. I think the overview could be improved; the author should explain why not having workers and only reproducing is unique (since readers may not be as familiar with wasp norms). In addition, the author should include a brief sentence on where this species is found. In the taxonomy and phylogeny table, the author should also add the binomial name. If there is a conservation status, please add this too. Although there are no pictures of the species on Wikimedia, I found a handful of great pictures on google. Perhaps the author can reach out to a couple of these websites to personally ask for their common’s license. A picture of the species in the taxonomy table will make the article more official and aesthetically pleasing. In description and identification, please expand on how large the species is. While you explain it is larger than typical Polistes, how large is that? Give specific numbers or pictures or measurements so the reader can visualize this unique feature. I added a Parasitism category since, beforehand, the sub categories of Parasitism, etc., were under colony cycle and really deserved a separate section. If you don’t think these should the structure, please feel free to move them. I just don’t think it did the sub-sections justice being under the colony cycle category. The first sentence in “Evolutionary basis of parasitism” is a run on and is quite confusing. I am not exactly sure what you are saying, so please revise it! In addition, you switch back and forth between present and past tense, please choose one and edit the others since it is confusing to follow. I added “signals” to the “Hydrocarbon” subsection to add specificity. Very cool species and overall interesting read. Good job! Chiararosenbaum (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Chiara Rosenbaum[reply]

Assignment 4 Comments[edit]

This is a very well written article about a very interesting species of wasp. There are a few things I would ad though. In the Taxonomy and Phylogeny you referenced Carpenter but did not link a page where the reader could find out more about Carpenter. It would be more credible if there was at least some link to a Wikipedia page about him or at least an external website. For now I will hyperlink the name to the same Carpenter I believe you are talking about. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me and replace the hyperlink with information about the individual you are talking about. It would also be nice if you gave a picture of the Caspian basins on a map just so the reader can get a quick at a glance image of the geographic location being discussed.

cnemelue (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Chidozie Emelue[reply]

Assignment 4 Comments[edit]

There are many sentences that do not contain a reference. If the contents of these sentences were based on research, then they should have citations to give such authors credit and work towards having a good article by Wikipedia standards. The page could be enhanced by adding more to the right box. Perhaps add a picture, distribution map, and conservation information (whether the species is endangered, threatened, etc.).

I suggest editing the following sentence (that appears before the first heading) as I do not understand what you mean by “only able to produce reproductives:” “This species is unique because it does not have the ability to produce workers and is only able to produce reproductives.”

In the “Taxonomy and Phylogeny” section, the full name of “Carpenter” should be listed and perhaps a short mention of who he is. “Carpenter” could also be linked to the associated Wikipedia page. In the following sentence, I would add “which are” after the comma to make it more clear that both of the species are “the only other social parasites in the Polistes genus” if that is the case, or make it clear that it is only one species, if that is the case: “P. semenowi is closely related to Polistes sulcifer and Polistes atrimandibularis, the only other obligate social parasites in the Polistes genus.”

In the following sentence (in the “Description and Identification” section) a citation should be added, if possible: “Both the first femur and posterior tibia of this wasp are elongated, and its mandibles are significantly thicker than those of other wasp species.” In the following sentence, I think that “similarly” should instead be similar: “The mandibles of this species, similarly to Polistes sulcifer and Polistes atrimandibularis, are marked by a distinct groove.”

In “The Colony Cycle” section, I am unsure if the phrase “travel down the elevation gradient” in the sentence “In the spring, females travel down the elevation gradient in order to parasitize P. dominula, a lowland species” makes proper use of the phrase “travel down the gradient,” so perhaps it should be changed. One sentence is very long and cumbersome. Although the grammar appears correct for simplicity perhaps the following sentence should be changed: “The timing of this usurpation is intimately linked to the emergence of P. dominula workers – if no workers have emerged, the hosts may simply abandon the colony; if most of the workers have already emerged, they may be able to fend off a P. semenowi invasion.”

In the second sentence of the section “Establishing dominance over host queen,” it would be best, if possible, to break up the 3 citations so that it is clear which material came from which source. I changed the part on the experiment to be in past tense, since the experience occurred previously.

In the sections “Hydrocarbon Signals” and “Van der Vecht’s organ,” it may be a good idea to mention mimicry earlier as until the end of that part it seemed more like morphology.

In the sections “Hydrocarbon signals” and “Reproduction within host colony” it would be best to change the sentences that list 2 citations such that it is clear what material came from what source.

Alison Gozlan (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Article[edit]

Overall I found the grammar and structure of the page to be relatively well done. My main concern is that there are some vital categories of Polistes semenowi behavior that are left out. First of all, only the behavior of parasitic females is mentioned. There is no mention of the role that the males of the species play, nor any discussion of mating behavior. Second, along with colony cycle, there should be a section on the life cycle of the species. This is important to better understanding the parasitic cycle that an individual undergoes. Third, there is no section on any kind of diet or eating behavior. This is crucial to the survival of the species and also evolutionarily informative. Kjkozak (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polistes semenowi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027041339/http://geocities.com/skrzydla/ to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]