Talk:Agelaia multipicta

Comments
This article was really well written, and I learned a lot! I added a few links to the page and changed a few grammatical errors. However, I do have a few suggestions. There are a few terms that may be made more clear if explained; for instance, swarm founding wasps could be further elaborated upon, as well as the term carrion eating. In addition, in the introduction, there is one sentence that says, "The workers and queens are morphologically distinguished... as well as external features...". I don't know if I may not be understanding something, but morphological and external features mean the same thing, so some change in wording may be necessary. Yangjennyh (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall this is very good article that explains the behavior and other important information about Agelaia multipicta. I removed the links that you had to specific countries in the article because we were told not to include these in class. In the taxonomy and phylogeny section I would include one more sentence about the identification of the wasp maybe were Haliday found the species. Also in the description section maybe explaining what carpenters taxonomic key notes actually mean. There is a lot of jargon in this part of the section that may be confusing for people who are not wasp experts. Also I made some changes to the grammatical structure and wording in the distribution section. The rest of your sections I made some small grammatical changes to also I think you could elaborate on the predation section. This section is a bit short and maybe you could talk about the response to predation by the wasps. Krausea (talk

Peer Review
Hey Anna! I reviewed your article and changed a few fairly minor things. I fixed a couple of typos, added some links, reworded a couple of sentences, and made it so references were not used more than once in a row. I also moved the queen relatedness section to earlier in the article. I had a couple of suggestions/things I did not understand as well: 1) You may want to add a distribution map, synonyms, and a common name if possible for this species. 2) I think the first paragraph in description section needs to be reworded to make it easier to understand. All of the jargon is very confusing. 3) The sentence “The area is surrounded by citrus crops.” in the Distribution section should probably be removed. It seems out of place. 4) In the Behavior section I was a little confused by sentence – “Also there is no observed use of chemical markers or any communication between wasps that foraged on carrion and any nest-mates” especially the nest-mates part.

5) The section “Possible reasons” may need to be reworded it is somewhat confusing. I was especially confused by sentence “Another possibility is that groups could not actually conjure enough force to effectively dominate against other colony groups, the increased competition would waste energy”. 6) In the Queen relatedness section more details on cyclical oligogyny hypothesis would be useful.

Overall your article was very well written and interesting! Ashleyearley (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments
The Taxonomy and Phylogeny section could be made a little clearer and easier to read. I understand the purpose of describing how A. multipicta fits within the different taxonomic categories, but there may be a way of describing the taxonomy that is not as cumbersome. I think that the first paragraph of the Description section has too many direct quotations that make this section difficult to read. This section is also difficult to edit because I am not entirely sure of the meaning of some of the phrases to even attempt to add punctuation. I would recommend changing the Description section to be more suitable for a Wikipedia page. Direct quotations like these may be more appropriate in a scientific article.

The Colony Cycle section is very detailed and concise. I specifically liked this section because it described a type of nest formation that I had not studied previously. Finally, there appears to be an issue with the third reference listed. I would recommend clicking the Help link to see what “Extra | pages= or | at=” means and how that issue can be fixed.

Overall, good job! Sydney Joyner (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility
I have just enough Greek to get what cyclical oligogyny must be meaning, but nowadays statistical chances are good, that the writer of this article has no ancient Greek at all. This would fit the definition of pretentious. Arrogance in an editor arrogates to the writer the opportunity to talk over the head of the well-intentioned reader, as if privately to other informed entomologists. Perhaps another editor will be willing to expand the phrasing here just enough to include the modestly-prepared reader in the discourse. Accessibility is a feature of Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits
Upon first opening the article, I noticed that there was no picture associated with the article. Of course this could be due to the lack of material on Agelaia multipicta, but if possible, add a picture of the wasp to help the reader associate the information with an actual wasp. I went through and condensed a few sentences so that the article flowed more smoothly and contained less short, choppy sentences. Overall, I thought the article was great because it had in-depth information on a variety of topics, especially topics relating to behavior, which is what our class was supposed to be focusing on. Awesome job! Samontenegro (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Edit
I fixed a few sentences that were wordy and vague. Most sections of this article are thorough and accurate although I thought that the “Predation” section could use some expansion. The article cited in the “Predation” section did not contain much information about predation specific to this species, so I understand why this section is not long. However, perhaps another article could be found to add on to this section. How do the wasps defend themselves from the monkeys, birds and ants mentioned in this section? Adding a picture to this article would also improve its quality. Overall, I thought this article was well-written and interesting. Probertsg (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)