Talk:Apis florea

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): Orchidabar. Peer reviewers: Khan.nadia, Claire.packer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Add map
Add to the article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.100.6 (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits for a course
I am changing the overview to a shorter description with what Apis Florea is, where it lives and nests, what it eats, fun facts, etc. Orchidabar (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I added a distribution and habitat section as well as an extensive behavior section with 8 subsections spanning important concepts in behavioral ecology.Orchidabar (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

For a course, I added several sections that were missing from this article including taxonomy and phylogeny, description and identification, distribution and habitat, colony cycle, and several sections on behavior. In the future, I would like to continue improving this article by adding information on its ecology, including important topics such as conservation.Orchidabar (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback
I thought that your article was very informative and well written. I fixed some grammar issues on your page and tried to improve the clarity of some of your sentences. My two major suggestions for the article are that you did not include references for many of your facts. If something is not common knowledge, it needs to be cited (basically every sentence). My other major qualm is that you gave a ton of information about other species of bees and their behavior. This is not an article about A. mellifera, so make sure you don't give any information about them if it isn't imperative to the understanding of Apis florea. I didn't delete any of it so that you can take a look at what is important. I was a little confused about the location of A. florea. In the Taxonomy and Phylogeny section you say that the migrated to Europe, but later on you say that they live in Asia and the Middle East. Make sure you are consistent on that. In the Description and Identification section, you say that they are smaller than the average bee, maybe you can say the size of the average bee to give that statement some context. I also don't think that you need a section on Predators if you already have a section on Defense of Predators. Other than those suggestions you did a great job! I hope that my suggestions are helpful. Claire.packer (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions
There was a lot of good information added to this article, and it seems really well-researched. My main edits were grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure changes. I agree with Claire's comment above that there was generally a lack of citations--every fact should be cited--and that the article seemed more like a comparison between A. florea and A. mellifera rather than a description of A. florea on its own. I think some of the information about A. mellifera is off-topic and doesn't need to be included in this article. Also, I feel that some of the information is a bit disorganized and could use a little more explanation. For instance, in the overview section at the very beginning, you give a lot of good information about the dancing behaviors as well as the differences between A. florea and its sister species. While I think those are good bits of information, I think they are too specific for the overview section and would be better left for a Behavior section and Taxonomy/Phylogeny respectively. I think the Overview can be limited to a few general facts about the bee. Along the same vein, under the Distribution and Habitat heading, you have a lot of really cool facts about how the bee picks its nesting locations and how they build their nests. I think those facts are off-topic under the heading you've chosen; the dancing can be put under a behavior heading and I think you can make a nesting heading for the facts about what the nests look like and how A. florea makes their nest. I think the Distribution and Habitat heading should be more about where they live, not necessarily how they choose it. I think there can be more thorough explanations of some of the behaviors you've mentioned. For instance, it might be beneficial to more explicitly expand on exactly what swarming and absconding are (under the Colony Cycle heading). Overall, there was some really interesting information--good work! (Mpmaz (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC))

Peer Review
This article provides a lot of great information and is overall a good entry. However, in agreement with the suggestions above, I do think the article is lacking citations and could use more throughout the page. Furthermore, I do think some of the information is out of place and not organized is the most efficient way. The "Division of Labor" section seemed out of place to me and I thought the layout of the categories could be rearranged a bit. Also, a specific question I had pertaining to the "Diet" section is what is the royal jelly that the queens eat? Maybe you could clarify that and inform the readers about what exactly it is. Overall, I found the information interesting and just made some minor grammar corrections. Nice work! Khan.nadia (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer review
I corrected some errors of inappropriate inter-Wiki link usage in the first paragraph, such as the hyperlinks included for the Asian continent in which the species is found. I also fixed some instances of grammatical, sentence structural, and spelling errors. For instance, in the paragraph on Taxonomy & Phylogeny, I corrected the first sentence by dividing it into two sentences to be more easily understood. Furthermore, I also found this article had many instances in which the species name was incorrectly capitalized in addition to the genus name so I edited for this mistake. Otherwise, I think the article is well written in terms of organization and context! However, I do think the article would benefit from additional citations and references as it seems that they are very sparsely distributed throughout the entry. Missmanasa (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)