Talk:Bombus hortorum

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): Khan.nadia. Peer reviewers: Orchidabar, Shelly May, Floyd Burney, Rasikareddy1019, Paanur.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes regarding the distribution
I have changed some of the information regarding this species' distribution: Fauna Europaea isn't a good source of geographic range; when the text "No data" is attributed to a country it means exactly that, i.e. that no data is available for that entry in the database; not necessarily that it doesn't exist in the country in question.

As for the reference to ITIS, it says nothing of any Australian range. / Ternarius (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article provides a great overview section with broader information that is later described in detail within the individual sections. I thought the Eye Anatomy and Vision subsection was particularly unique to this bee and this article. I fixed some grammatical errors in the Communication and Competition sections. Other than that, I thought the structure and organization of this article was well-developed and flowed well. Great job!

This is a very well written article. I added a few hyperlinks to the last few sections, and I corrected the spelling of Trifolium pratense. The first sentence in the Nest category was a fragment, so I fixed the ending. The only two sections that I found to be lacking were the Communication and Defense categories. Though they don't communicate while foraging, they probably communicate while in the colony. It would have been interesting to know how they do this. For the Defense category, how do the defensive busses protect the colony? Are the buzzes simply warning the intruder to stay away, or are they allerting the colony to the threat so that a greater defense is prepared? If a predator is attacking, how do they fight back? As a final nitpick, a distribution map would have been a good addition. These suggestions are very minor and can be accepted or disregarded. This page provides a fairly comprehensive look at this bee. Floyd Burney (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed about this article was that the conservation status of B. hortorum was not included on the right hand side and not mentioned in the article. I researched the species’ conservation status and confirmed from three different sources that this species is of least concern. I then added the conservation status to the right hand side of the article’s info./picture box. I commend the overview section for including both detailed and interesting information that uniquely describes B. hortorum. The eye anatomy and vision section is hard to understand from a beginner’s point of view. I suggest describing this information in more layman’s terms. I added hyperlinks to this section and other sections (e.g. taxonomy and phylogeny) that included simple jargon that one could read up on in a separate article to facilitate comprehension. This article is lacking a distribution map. Claims are well referenced. It would be nice to include more subsections in the behavior section, such as foraging behavior and kin selection.Orchidabar (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
This page is extremely thorough and detailed. I especially was impressed by the description and identification portion of the page because it described in depth exactly what this species look like, along side a clear image which helped in visualizing the description. I was also interested in the level of detail in the communication and foraging behavior sections of this page. It seems like a lot of the original comments on the page have been addressed and edited, although it appears that the reference portion of the page needs some work according to the Wikipedia standards. I went through and edited all the typos and reformatted the colony cycle portion to separate it into growth and decline, in order to also mention whether or not the species was getting harmed by human factors such as deforestation. Additionally, I think that if you have a few sentences in a row all from the same source, you do not need to place a reference after each sentence, just after the end of the last sentence, so that may help to clean up your article if you choose to condense your references. Overall, well done, I was very impressed by this page! Paanur (talk)

Peer Review
I was very impressed with the additions that were made to what was already written about Bombus hortorum. They added greatly and enriched the overall article, especially in the sections about parasitism, foraging behavior, and geographic distribution. I would really like to see the sections about nests, communications, and traplining to be expanded upon, especially traplining since the section lacks a thorough explanation of the concept. Other than that, I made some changes to condense your references throughout the article. So long as the same article is being used for the facts in multiple sentences in a row, it is not necessary to cite the reference at the end of each sentence, but simply at the end of the group of sentences. Additionally, I changed the capitalization of the headings of some sections to match the Wikipedia standards. Great job!Mebennett49 (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Mebennett49

You did a great job including a lot of information in a comprehensive and organized manner. I think the Communication and Trapling sections can be combined into one section under Behavior and then further expanded upon because they have overlapping information. Similar to the two reviews above me, I notice the citation errors. If you clean them up, that would help a lot! I went through and edited some grammar and added hyperlinks for some important words. It would be beneficial to have a Kin Selection section in the article, but overall, great job with adding information to this article and making it flow together! Shelly May (talk)

Comments
My edits to this article were mainly some minor grammar and punctuation changes, as well as adding a number of hyperlinks to the page. Overall, this article presents a lot of really interesting and relevant information in a way that is organized and clear to understand. My only comment is that you may consider breaking some of the larger paragraphs (like Foraging and Parasites) into sub-headings such that the large chunks of text don't overwhelm a reader. Also, one commenter mentioned that citations are only needed at the end of a group of sentences that are paraphrased from the same source; however, I was under the impression that every sentence with information from a source must be cited. I would look that up and make sure that everything is properly cited. Otherwise, this is an excellent article. (Mpmaz (talk) 22:32, 1 December 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 country of New Zealand in which the species is found. Other than this, I thought the article did a fantastic job with their use of inter-Wiki hyperlinks! I do think this article would greatly benefit from the addition of further references and citations as they are currently quite sparsely distributed, such as in the description and identification section in which there are only 2 citations but several specific number value data sets. It seems the author has utilized over 20 different sources, so I believe they have just neglected to cite all of them? I think it would really help the validity of the argument to just go back and add a citation after every sentence in which a fact is stated which was derived from a source. If you can fix this, though, I think you have a lot of incredible information in this article that could really shine! Missmanasa (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hey good job on the article. I enjoyed reading it. I didn't actually make any edits because I didn't think you needed any. The writing was well done and the structure of the article seemed fine. The only thing I would suggest is getting more references to add information about the bee in general. I think adding more information about the bee is what will take the article over the top. Good luck! Matthewkim93 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article had a substantial amount of information. It really shows that you utilized the 20 sources that are currently there and pulled out all the facts possible. If I were to add to anything, I would either add more pictures to the rest of the article to break it up a bit with pictures of maybe the plants they forage on. Having three pictures all on top of each other at the very top is a lot. You cited your sources when needed, making sure that sections with similar information were cited and adding new citations when the information changed. Overall, a job well done. Tefrancis (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
I enjoyed reading your article about this bee. I’m impressed that you were able to find so many sources and so much important information. I think that you could add a distribution map of the range of the species and space out the images you have on the top of the article. It seems a little cramped and awkward in terms of formatting, and it might make the rest of the article more balanced it he images were more spread out. You also have a section “External Links” but don’t have anything linked, so if you don’t plan on adding anything there, I would remove that section. Another minor thing you could do is to add more citations within the article, even if it might be from the same source multiple times. I liked how you sectioned the article, and the subsections were adequately long enough. In the C. bombi section, I just italicized the species name when needed, you might have missed a few when writing the section. Overall great work and I hope you can get a good article status on this! Chtsai016 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)