Talk:Lasioglossum leucozonium

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): Raymundo.marcelo. Peer reviewers: Floyd Burney, Roohi.byakod, Missmanasa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Review/Suggestions
For this entry, the main corrections I made were concerning the differentiation of specific terms and concepts via italics, as well as the addition of inter-Wiki links. I included italics for several of the genus and species names discussed in the taxonomy and phylogeny section such as “Halictinae.” I also added around 10 inter-Wiki links for words that I felt could require further explanation, such as “protonum,” “hymenopteran,” and “brood.” In addition, I deleted several inter-Wiki links where I saw fit as a result of a lack of a page associated with the terms. For instance, I deleted the links for the species “callizonium,” “zonolum,” and “majus” mentioned in the paragraph on taxonomy and phylogeny. My suggestion is to consider improving the individual sections as they are mostly only one sentence long, and that too a very brief sentence. The article also lacks citations and overall could be improved with more research. Missmanasa (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback
Overall, this article is in need of clarification as well as more information in general. In the taxonomy section, saying “there is genetic variation within the species depending on its location” is not particularly informative, as this is true of most species, so this should be elaborated upon to show why it is important. Although interesting, I do not see how stating how its eyes have been studied in relation to that other species is particularly relevant for the description section. The phrase “strongly striate laterally to reticulate medially” in the female description section needs to be explained, because as written it does not make very much sense. There are no citations in the female description section, which is very concerning. In general, this section needs serious editing to make it understandable to a non-expert of bee anatomy. The male section also needs to be changed so that a layperson can understand its contents. The eye section could also use further explanation for the layperson. I am unclear as to what you mean by “sexual brood” in the development section. Do you just mean that the offspring produced are all capable of reproduction? And what do you mean by “after the brood mates?” Do the siblings in the brood mate with each other? It sounds like you may actually be referring to the same event, which is when newly matured females mate and make a new nest. The sections in behavior and ecology are rather redundant, and you repeat information in nesting biology and social organization, and there is information in nesting biology that you already covered in nest structure. Under human importance, you should expand upon how it has “found its niche in nature.” Does this mean it actually has a beneficial effect in North America, rather than being a harmful invasive species? In general, there is far too much descriptive information compared to how sparse all of the other sections are. Mandeljulia (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi!

Your article on L. leucozonium is very good! While you have discussed many topics after the description of the bee, I would suggest either expanding on each subheading or combining relevant ones. Most of your subheadings past the description section are very short, and could use additional information to make them more wholesome (for example, "Colony cycle", "Development and reproduction" and "Predators"). It looks like others have reviewed your article for grammar and hyperlinks, so I did not need to make many changes regarding those. I did find the use of singular and plural pronouns interchanged within the same context, so I fixed that. I would suggest perhaps adding a map to show the distribution of the species, so it's easier to visualize. I also suggest adding more pictures, for example of the difference in morphology of the sexes or of their nests.

Overall, you did a good job at finding plenty of topics to talk about, and you used lots of resources, which is great!

Roohi.byakod (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Review
This page is all over the place. The description and identification section is excruciatingly complex. Very few people reading this section will understand it at all. The entire section is almost verbatim from the source. This is very close to being plagiarism. In complete contrast, the other sections (except the taxonomy) are thread bare. Colony cycle, development and reproduction, nest structure, and behavior and ecology should be combined into one section, but even this won’t be enough for an acceptable colony cycle section. Every section from interaction with other species and human importance contains between 1-2 sentences (with the exception of “Stings” which has 4). Finally, how do the bees mate? You say that the “brood mates”. Do they mate with each other? Is there any kind of ritual? This is just sad. I added a few hyperlinks, and corrected a few grammatical issues; however, this is like putting a Band-Aid on a broken dam. The page needs to be fundamentally rewritten with significantly more detail added to all sections (except for the description which needs to be dramatically simplified and written without simply copying the words from a source) to have any real use.Floyd Burney (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Review
I think the male and female sections seem too long and wordy for the average reader. If wikipedia is designed for people with little background knowledge of bees, I don't think people can really understand those sections (I didn't). I would also really like to see more about the colony cycle since it varies so much between species. There's only one sentence on some of your subsections, so I would reommend adding more so it's balanced. You have a lot of interesting information, but I think you could definitely add more. Courtney.cleveland (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Review
For your introduction I would move the synonym into the taxobox, as this is not a common name. I agree with previous comments that your male and female sections are too long, and should at the very least be divided into multiple paragraphs. I also edited the parasites section since that sentence was unnecessarily confusing. In the eye section you say that this bee flies relatively fast. Relative to what? Bees in its genus or family? You need to specify this otherwise it means nothing.

In addition, I think that you should have a map to better depict the wide geographic range of this bee. I could offer more comments, but this page is sparse and needs more detail or consolidated sections. Either way, the sections generally should be longer than 1 or 2 sentences. Xerylium (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)