Talk:Melipona bicolor

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): Kevin.george1. Peer reviewers: Courtney.cleveland, Mira.tbaum, Cratermann.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments 10/29
I added this page to the category Hymenoptera of South America and adjusted the headings to be consistent across the page and the rest of Wikipedia.

The nest section is very thorough, as well as the mating section, and overall your article gives a clear idea of this species. I like how you found a map and good photo for the organism. The text was clear and readable. I would recommend adding to the description and identification. Right now it is not very specific and it’s also unbalanced. Courtney.cleveland (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WashU Student Review
I made very minor changes to the grammar and and sentence structure of the introduction and taxonomy paragraph. Overall, however, the introduction was solid and included an interesting fact that made me want to read more.I added a second paragraph to the Communication section. I found an article discussing the use of sound frequency to recruit members of foraging parties towards high-quality food sources. I also added a citation and added more examples in the Predator section. The paragraph was formerly missing any citations.

The page covers a wide variety of important topics, though some of them are relatively short. I would work on expanding those that only have one or two sentences. cratermann (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article was overall extremely comprehensive and covered an array of subjects regarding the Melipona bicolor species. In order to improve it, I increased the number of headings, separating subjects that seemed to be too vague into smaller, more specific, subsections. For example, I created a “Nest Interior” subsection, as there is a solid paragraph of information solely on the inside of the M. bicolor nest. Furthermore, the communication heading could be broken down into different forms of communication (chemical and sound) to make the sections more specific in their information. I also increased the number of hyperlinks within the article to connect it further to other Wikipedia articles. Other than these more significant formatting changes, I edited some sentence structures and corrected spelling errors/typos. mira.tbaum (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wash U Student Final Contribution Comments
Overall great job on this article, it is very evident that the author put a lot of time into this article. I was extremely impressed by the amount of detail included within the Communication section and was very interested in the sound signaling used within this bee. I made some basic changes to grammar and sentence structure throughout the page because as a whole the article was very well written. I would recommend looking over your grammar again just to ensure that the various editors did not miss any mistakes. Making these small edits just ensures that the page is as clear and concise as possible. I would recommend adding more information about the bee within the "Human Importance" section as this section is very important as the readers can connect most with the information within this section. Perhaps some information specifically on its the species conservation status and also perhaps more information on the honey produced by this particular species. Lastly within the "Worker-queen Conflict" it would very beneficial to include some information on the relatedness between workers and queen within this species. This can be helpful because understanding the relatedness is a good base for an understanding why the conflicts. Overall great job and keep up the great work! Helenaxeros (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Student Review
I believe that this article had extremely strong content, and was very clear in the way the information was communicated. I felt the behavior heading of this article was especially detailed and impressive. In this article I focused on highlighting the elements of the Wikipedia good article criteria. Given that it is suggested that each heading is around 200 to 600 words, I separated the Mating Behavior section of this page, in order to make it more clear what the three elements discussed in this section were. Additionally, it seemed like some of the places where words were linked there were extra spaces, so I tried to go through and make sure the formatting of the page was correct. I moved around the image with the distribution of the species in order to place it next to that heading rather than in the taxonomic box. I agree with the comments above stating that the Worker-queen conflict portion of this article could use some elaboration, in addition to some information about the conservation status of the bees today. With that being said I think this article is very successful in fulfilling many of the components of a strong Wikipedia article and is extremely impressive! Paanur (talk)

Student Review
I think there is a lot of well organized information in this article and I was very impressed at the amount of work put into it. As the other reviewers, I went through and made some edits to the grammar and the flow of the sentences. I would suggest adding more detail to the Description and identification section even though the many pictures aid in the description. Something you might want to consider is not abbreviating Provision and Oviposition for POP throughout the article because some people may not be reading the whole article and see where it is discussed in the Nest structure section. Overall, this is a wonderfully written and composed article! Shelly May (talk)

Suggestions
Overall I thought the article was well written. There were very few grammatical mistakes, and the sentences flowed well together. I would recommend moving the world map from the “Distribution and Habitat” section to the “taxobox” so that readers can more easily identify where the M. bicolor is endemic when they are reading the intro of the article. Furthermore, I would also add more information to the “Distribution and Habitat” section and “Predators” (if possible) as the section seems to be slightly underdeveloped. However, once these changes are made, I feel that the article will be fairly close to a “Good Article” and achieve this status. Mmc7777 (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
I really liked the layout of this article. I thought it was better organized than most articles I have reviewed. I did note, however, that I felt there were several sections that could be expanded, like the description and identification page. However, I felt that the article flowed well and was well written. Allykunze —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
Can you expand the Taxonomy and Description sections? Those two are short and lack detail. For example, are their defining characteristics of females that you could add?

In the Flight activity section, what did you mean by "This may because of their habitats of high humidity, and being accustomed to fog."? Also, do you have a reference that states that these bees are good for beekeeping? Just because they don't have stings doesn't necessarily mean they are good for beekeeping.

I made some minor wording edits, and thought that the article had good organization and flow overall. I appreciated that you had multiple pictures to help illustrate your article. Xerylium (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions
Overall the article has a nice flow and is interesting. However, I think it could use some more information on the description of the species such as how big it is or if it looks similar to any other species. I also think that “Diet” should be its own heading because it does not fit well with the other category, “Predators”, under “Interaction with other species”. The heading might fit after “Colony Cycle” and before “Behavior”. Finally, the subheadings “Virgin Queens” and “Queen Bees” should be merged because there is so little information under the subheading “Virgin Queens”. Megxb (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Melipona Bicolor is not found in Amazon at all, the species inhabit in the southeast of South America. So, the mention to this in the section Human Importance should be corrected (probably eliminated, and used in an article about other species as Melipona Compressipes or Melipona Seminigra).