Talk:Agelaia pallipes

Ajlu1 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Cool wasp, although it appears that the picture you used to have there was a Japanese Giant Hornet, not a paper wasp. You have a good introduction, but you drop a lot of big words in that paragraph. I would link some of the terms (eusocial, polygynic) to their respective articles. In the description section, you switch between 3rd and 1st person. Don’t use “we.” I made an edit for you there, changing it to “There is a clear dimorphism…” I really enjoyed your venom section, it’s the most thorough section I’ve seen written on venom so far. Finally, I think some pictures would really spruce up your article. Overall, it is well written and very thorough. Great job! Ajlu1 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Suggestions
Overall, this article is very thorough and covers a lot of varying characteristics about the wasp in great detail. Each section is very well developed. However, I just had a few suggestions on how it might be improved. First of all, I made some changes to a few minor grammatical mistakes that I found. I also removed some words that may indicate bias, which would prevent this from becoming a good article. Also, in the "Competition" section, you stated that A. pallipes will frequently be the victor when competing with other species for resources, but you then said that it will frequently lose to stingless bees. I feel that the section would benefit from information on why it will lose to stingless bees, when they emerge victorious in many other competitive bouts. Similar to what the above poster said, you also use a lot of fairly complicated terms in your article, and explaining them would help some readers. For instance, you could further explain the concept of pre-imaginal determination in the "Morphology" section. I also believe that it would be interesting to see if the pheromone communication system in this species has primarily selfish or altruistic tendencies. Finally, linking the sources to the original papers would be beneficial. These changes are minor in the scope of things, however, as this article was very well done. RJPet (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article is broad in its coverage and discusses various aspects of this wasp species. There are a few grammatical errors, but besides that it is well written. You use a lot of words that aren't common knowledge, such as eusociality and you should hyperlink them. This so someone reading the page who might not have a background in animal behavior can understand it. Also, you should condense your citations so that when a source is repeated it does not show up and a new source on the reference list. Beside that, well done! Amgoldberg15 (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Just a couple things to add to this article. First off, a relevant picture would be beneficial.

At the beginning of your article you did a great job of explaining some more advanced terms but as the article progressed you forgot to include descriptions of more advanced terms. This could be fixed by including more hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages.

“Their nests are composed of vertical combs made of horizontal combs forming a single form row of concentric hemispheres.” This sentence is unclear as to whether there are vertical sheets with horizontal combs or vice versa. I’m assuming the former but this could be cleared up. The section on nesting could also include a little bit more information such as number of combs possible or number of combs on average.

Overall, this article required little change in regards to spelling and grammar. It was extremely well-written and, barring one statement, was incredibly clear. A few small changes I made were that I added the ° symbol to indicate degrees Celsius. Furthermore, I italicized the genus and species when necessary. Other than that, the article went in-depth on many essential topics. One of my only suggestions is to possibly search for more behaviors that are specific to A. pallipes. While what was written was good, I often forgot that I was reading about a particular species and was given the sense that I was reading on solely the genus. I think that this problem could be easily remedied by including a couple sections unique to A. pallipes. Other than that, the writing was clear, concise, and well-referenced.Peivaz (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments
This was a very detailed article full of great information. One change that I made was to add many more links throughout the article in order to better integrate it with other Wikipedia pages. One suggestion that I have would be to try to find a photo to add, because it would help the reader understand your identification of the wasp in your Distribution and Identification section. In addition, I think you could make your introduction section a little longer, in order to give the reader a full overview of your species before you get into your specific sections. Otherwise, your article is great! [User:Katieortman|Katieortman]] (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)