Talk:Large garden bumblebee

Class Assignment
I added expensively to the page and changed some of the existing information. Callisons (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Edit
Hello! I am an undergraduate student at Washington University in St. Louis and I am editing this article regarding Euglossa cordata to improve the content.

I thought the introduction was a little bit bland, maybe add a fact that may attract the reader’s attention. As a result, I added a few quick facts that may be able to do this! “This bumblebee is the largest in Britain and has a long face and tongue that allows it to pollinate tubed flowers that are hard to reach” and “Unfortunately, the bee is declining in numbers and has been placed on the Bioadversity Action Plan to preserve it!” were added.

The taxonomy and phylogeny was well-written and has information regarding origin and relatedness to other common species.

The description and identification section was long and informative! The facts presented are very specific and paints a very good picture of what the bee looks like. The section comparing it to the Bombus hortorum is very interesting because we can know how to distinguish the two.

The Nest section was not really related to the description and identification section so I made a new section for it. Doing so, I think you should add a little bit more regarding the nest because it is so important.

I added a few sentences to the habitat section because information regarding the habitat was slightly missing, but overall this section was also well-written!

This article, though, doesn’t have enough information regarding behavior. Besides the worker-queen conflict and maybe the parasites, there is no information that talks about the specific behaviors these bees may take. I think you should try to add more information regarding the behavior.

Overall, it was a good read and I learned a lot from editing this paper!Junsang.cho (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall, I think this article had a nice flow and had interesting information. I made a lot of changes to the wording to improve the flow of writing and to help create that “Wikipedia style”. I also fixed some grammatical errors and spelling. One thing I really would advise is to take care to avoid redundancy. I removed the sentence “B. ruderatus workers may be hard to distinguish from B. hortorum due to morphological similarities” because it was redundant (it was repeated three times in three different places). I also changed the wording of the “Similarities with Bombus hortorum” paragraph slightly. The words “minor differences” and “similarities” was used very often so I rearranged the sentences to give the same idea without those words. I also hyperlinked “DNA”, “sympatric”, and “habitat fragmentation”. Though there was enough information for some of the sections, others, such as “Nests”, “Diet”, and “Biased Sex Ratio” seemed sparse.Megxb (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Another Peer Review
Firstly, this is a great article. It is well written, organized and detailed. The section on human importance was especially well done. I added hyperlinks to scutellum, pronotum, abdomen, thorax, oviposition, larvae, mortality, pollinators and nectar. I also changed the capitalization of the headings in accordance with Wikipedia Manual of Style, which states that only the first letter of the first word of each heading should be capitalized. Also, the section on “Biased sex ratio” could be expanded; for example, why is there a biased sex ratio? The sections on diet, nests, and taxonomy could also be expanded. I would also recommend adding more sections on behavior, such as mating behavior. Mohp7 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)