Talk:Megachile campanulae

awkward
"Researchers suggest the bees' behavior is an example of adaptive behavior (ecology). The emerging bees were free of parasites, and these new ways to build and live in nests gave more protection to them." -- they don't really live in the nests, at least not after they are born. Also, I need to do more research as to exactly what the primary article describes as the adaptive role using plastics played, or if this was just lay press fluff... -- here is is" Although perhaps incidentally collected, the novel use of plastics in the nests of bees could reflect ecologically adaptive traits necessary for survival in an increasingly human-dominated environment."

Addt'l resources
From my talk page, courtesy of another editor: &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 14:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Human interaction
I heard about the GA review at WikiProject Insects and decided to take a look as well. The main section I saw needing work is the Human interaction section. This article is about Megachile campanulae, so we should be sure to keep the focus on that. I simplified the section down a bit to keep that focus a bit more. However, the second paragraph seems a little out of place and would be more applicable for a general pollinator decline article, but neither the content nor the references are addressing this species specifically. Basically I'm getting a tinge of original research when reading the section. I can see how someone was trying to link the topics together a bit, but it feels like we're getting into the weeds a bit with those connections. To fix this, could we find a source to replace the second paragraph essentially saying there is increasing concern about solitary bees, such as this species, and any specific information about this species relating to that? Otherwise we're getting a little coatracky.
 * Thank you for the help! I'll work these concerns, but can use any assistance you can bring.  This section was added on advisement from an anoher editor who was created several GA's. This is my first attempt.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, the first and third paragraph seem good overall. I'm not sure about the first sentence since it seems broad (what are we mediating exactly for this species and can we reference it?), but the rest of the two paragraphs leaves me wanting more information. "The relationship between native pollinators such as M. campanulae and humans is complex." is vague. Some additional depth could be given there. Otherwise, "Many native bee species, including M. campanulae can be managed with minimal equipment. M. campanulae and numerous other species will nest in simple bee boxes." should be explained and referenced a bit more. What exactly is used for equipment, what exactly are bee boxes, etc? Overall, more specific content and references that summarize things well that we don't want to go into too much depth here would tighten this section up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also took a quick glance at the pollination section too, namely the table. The notes section could be removed since the columns mostly aren't used. The namesake note for bellflower could be expanded in text instead a bit more (reference needed). The notes for goldenrod aren't needed since that is getting outside the focus of the article. That would allow the table to take up less space with two fewer columns and possibly be condensed in a horizontal form similar to here. . I can try to help out a bit this weekend on edits, but these are the main improvements I'm seeing that would help with being a GA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * *The notes section is mostly empty because the table was just put up (yesterday?) and has not been filled out. But, agreed, the table needs work.  I'm sure that you saw that it was recently just a list.  Since one of the critiques above was that this section needs more, this was one way that I thought it could be addressed.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I didn't really look into the article's history too much, but just looked at what I saw so far. I'm not sure what notes we could include specific to each plant that would be relevant specifically to this species without getting off topic. If we are adding text, it's best to put that in the body, and the cleanest way to do that would probably be to put general information about how, what, etc. this bee pollinates, with the pictures as examples. Tables aren't really meant for a lot of text, so I get the feeling expanding it further might cause more issues rather than solve them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the gallery? &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 20:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. That looks more slick than I thought it would. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The other bee picture / male/female
There were two pictures of the bee, because one is female and other male. thoughts? &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 19:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a female picture at my glance through the history, so could you post the female picture here you are thinking of? If there is a clear morphological difference we can see in a picture, then I'd be all for having both males and females. If we as readers can't see any differences between the two though, it would be a bit redundant to include both. A general rule I like to follow for pictures is that a new picture should be adding information in some fashion, especially something that cannot easily be described in text. Right now I don't see any text describing differences between males and females, so I couldn't say for sure yet whether having both sexes would be an idea worth considering here. In general though, it's tough to find good pictures depicting sexual dimorphism between species for many insects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. We don't need both. I was confused because I thought you removed one of the bee pics, when it was actually the campanula flower.  I will change out the flower pic, because it is a better image.  Campanula is the bellflower and the namesake of the bee. Not sure if there is some elegant way to include that fine detail, other than the mention in the article lead paragraph.    &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 21:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably best to work it into the body of the paragraph somewhere as the lede should summarize what's already in the text. I can try tackling that this weekend if no one else gets around to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaff, did you ever find a reference on the common name being the bellflower resin bee? I searched through online journals and checked the ESA common name database and did not find any official common name . I'm sure someone has described the latin name at some point, so if we can find such a source saying it's specific epithet is named after the bellflowers it can be found pollinating, we should be good in this area. For the time being, I moved this information in the lede to the naming section since it technically wasn't included in the text at all yet, and we don't present new information in the lede. I'll keep an eye out otherwise for a source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * * Here for starters Species Megachile campanulae - Bellflower Resin Bee and maybe somewhere else.. The source for the pollination on the Bellflower is from here, which is mostly a mirror of the textbook/review by Mitchell refenced in Morhpology section. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 04:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See also Campanula for the name of the flower.
 * Also, for something like precedent see "The specific name is derived from the Latin saccus, meaning "sac" or "bag", and more specifically "moneybag".[5]" from Featured article Thopha saccata. (The reference for that is a Latin dictionary.) If translating the name violates WP:NOR, I guess we have to delete it. Seems a bit unnecessary, though. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 04:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

more flowers/hosts
Need to work these into the gallery. http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Megachile+campanulae#Hosts &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

this article
has some good stuff about nests and larvae. Anyone have access to JSTOR or other resource? ''Baker, J.R., E.D. Kuhn, and S.B. Bambara. 1985. Nests and immature stages of leafcutter bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 58: 290–313.'' &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 23:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have pretty much full access from my university if something is online. I won't be able to do much tomorrow, but I'll check it out on Saturday and see what could be added from it, but it does appear to be a primary source, so we're a little limited in what we should be using it for. It could lead us in a useful direction though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a primary source, however it is referenced is a few of the secondary and tertiary sources we already have (such as the DiscoverLife website). I mentioned it on the Morphology section: "Illustrations of nest structure and immature stages were published by Baker in 1985.[13]"  If we just add some quotes/paraphrases from the original text, maybe that is okay?  If there are images/diagrams, can they be modified such that we can use them?  Lots of charts, etc on other articles appear to have been made by editors here and the map that I put up is such an adaptation...  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Normally we should be citing the secondary source even if it does cite a primary source. Glancing over the article, almost all of its images are line drawings that would not be easily adaptable, plus the images would be copyrighted by the journal so we can't pull them from it either. They're mostly taxonomic in nature, and I'm pretty sure I've seen actual pictures out nest structure that would be more appropriate for a general audience rather than drawings. It's definitely an interesting read, but we should be able to pull content from review articles to make sure we're not getting too technical and are focusing on what would be important for the general reader. I'll keep looking at what sources cite it though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. &mdash; Gaff <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 02:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Cladogram
Page 252 of this document has a cladogram. M campanulae is about the 10th species from the bottom. It is a dissertation. 
 * Dissertations are often iffy as sources on Wikipedia (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Any ideas on where you were thinking of going with this source? Even putting that it's a primary source aside, I'm not too sure what we'd do with a cladogram when this article is just about one species. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The cladogram idea was put forth by the reviewer doing the Good Article review. I'm not sure how it would work either, but I'm a rookie! &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 03:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't done much checking up on who's actually proposing what yet it seems. I'll see what I can do to help once the work week is over. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I went looking over our other insect related GA's and we don't ever have cladograms (or in most regular articles for that matter). I honestly wouldn't consider a cladogram for most articles, much less for a GA nomination as cladograms change on the species level almost every time someone does a new revision. It would probably be better to stick with mentioning closely related species if sources mention them in text for some reason. I honestly wouldn't add any more in the current article about closely related species unless we would be discussing ones that are easily confused with this species, but that's already going above and behind of a standard GA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Distribution
Gaff, how are you putting together the distribution map? It sparked my curiosity because the text and image don't quite match up right now. I also just read an article not too long ago in the Annals of the Entomological Society of America that I dug up again on solitary bees in Minnesota. It's behind a paywall, but this species was found in Itasca State Park in Minnesota, so you'd at least have the Minnesota reference. Just as an FYI, bugguide.net isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia in general (as much as I hate to say it) as it is essentially a Wiki of sorts since it is largely user generated content. I'd just stick to using whatever sources you've found as references of location. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Source came from here. I put the source reference on the metadata for the file at Commons.  It checks out with what I have read about some of the other specimen locations described in encyclopedia of life.  It is my first time making a map, so may be a bit rough around the edges, but good enough for a general reference and for this article.  Most if not all the stuff I gathered from bugguide was imported from encyclopedia of life or ITIS, so if it is essential to update those references, I can do it.  If not, I have other projects I am working on and would prefer to leave as-is for now. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 04:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, just checking mainly since I suspected you were pulling for EoL, etc. but wasn't sure. I think we should be fine with this section for now. Overall, it looks like you've got things addressed for the GA review, and I'll be pretty content with the article myself once I can find a reference on the common name. Gotta say if that's my only concern we're dealing with a good (and hopefully good) article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Reply: I'll go ahead and reply to comments from, since this has been "my" project. I'm guessing that you did not read the GA review currently underway, because your comments about the morphology section are more or less redundant and in the process of being addressed. The expansion happened only a couple days ago and I'm working to clean it up. Yes: it is exquisitely detailed and there is a lot of jargon. It needs polishing. If you want to help with that, feel free, either on the article or here: User:Gaff/Morphology draft. The pollination list started as a list, then a list with one photo (a nice pic of the bellflower (campanula) and a comment saying it was the "namesake"). That was criticized as "needing expansion" and as WP:OR because I used the word namesake. Then I made a table, which was criticized with the suggestion that it be a gallery, so I did that. I liked the list best, with one photo, so will go back to that. The section really cannot be expanded more, unless somebody else has a reference that I have missed. &mdash; Gaff <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 03:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The content on taxonomy, and life cycle are of good length and readability. However, two sections need attention.
 * Way too much detail in Morphology and identification. This is written like an entomology text or journal article, as if written for specialists (in fact it's quite clear that this page was basically paraphrased line by line). The flagrant undefined use of terms like F1 and T2, as well as the shear amount of text, will discourage most readers from comprehending any key traits, and is of interest to only a miniscule proportion of readers. I know that some editors like going into extreme morphological detail but that alone is not a good reason to do so. See Make technical articles understandable for more.
 * , excessive use of photographs of pollination. Per WP:Gallery and Consideration of image download size, image galleries should not needlessly be added to articles and can slow down load speeds: not much information is really gained from the gallery aside from "pretty pictures". It would be better to write out the list of plants as prose, or perhaps a concise table or list, with select images.--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

genus vs species (what in which article)
I don't disagree with accuracy of the content. But, much of it belongs in a more generic article about the whole of the genus Megachile GeeBee60 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megachile campanulae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906101902/http://cumuseum.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/The%20Bees%20of%20Colorado.pdf to http://cumuseum.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/The%20Bees%20of%20Colorado.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this statement accurate?
The article currently reads: "They are considered mason bees, which is a common descriptor of bees in several families, including Megachilidae"

I have generally heard this term (mason bees) in relation to Osmia (Megachilidae). I did not know that the term applied either to Megachile campanulae nor to bees in other families. Muniche (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)