Talk:Melipona subnitida

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): Paanur. Peer reviewers: Mira.tbaum, Mmc7777, VAD2015.

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

Suggestions
I was very satisfied with this article—learning an abundant amount of information about the M. subnitida and its behavioral characteristics. I made a few comments: first, I linked “Brazil” with its respective Wikipedia page so that readers can get a better feel for the environment that M. subnitida is endemic to. I suggest re-wording the first sentence in the article, changing the original wording of : “ Melipona subnitida is a tropical endemic bee species found in northeastern Brazil” to a more clear and concise version that reads: “Melipona Subnitida is a a tropical bee species that is endemic to Northeastern Brazil.”  In this way endemic is used as an adverb rather than an adjective—making it clear to the reader that it is located in Brazil, rather than being described as endemic. I also added a comma after “Melipona subnitida” in the first sentence of the kin recognition section in order to separate the opening clause from the rest of the sentence and prevent confusion for the reader. Futhermore, I continued to link “haploidy” (as its mentioned in the second sentence of “Kin Recognition” section) with its Wikipedia page online. Lastly, I corrected the following sentence by removing the word “else”, as this does not make logical sense, and was likely a typo: “Workers of single mated queen produce males where else workers of multiple mated queen have been observed to prefer production of brothers, the outcome depending ultimately on who reproduces.” In the behavior section there is are also two citations listed—it would be best to break these up so that it is clear where the information came from. Mmc7777 (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great article so far. I have learned a lot about M. subnitida especially about its diet and it relationship with humans. I make several corrections with include italicizing Melipona in the Taxonomy section, P. hagenella in parasites, and M. subnitida in production and in agriculture, adding hyperlinks to Brazil and haploidy, and italicizing the title of article. I have also made a few grammar corrections such as changing “It is a species…” to “This species…” and removing is considered” from the overview. VAD2015 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Overall this article provides a great deal of information about this species of Melipona. To improve the flow of the article, I made general grammatical edits to make sure that sentence structure was proper throughout the entire article. In the “Parasites” section, there seemed to be a repeat of information regarding what species tend to benefit off of ths M. subnitida. Furthermore, I made this article more connected to the “Wikipedia community” by adding some links on certain words. I also separated the heading “Workers and Males” into two different headings as they play two different roles in the nest. Since the “queen role” received its own heading, it felt more natural to have a section for each member of the hive. I added the word “honey” to the “production heading” as the section seemed to be solely about honey production. For other formatting changes, I deleted any extra spaces between lines that belonged in a single paragraph. This article provided comprehensive information and just needed simple formatting and grammatical editing to be a better article as a whole. mira.tbaum (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

P. hagenella?
What is P. hagenella? There are two problems here; the first time something is mentioned in an article it must not be abbreviated and, an abbreviated name cannot be wikilinked as an article about the species would use the full binomial as a title (or redirect). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Review from a friend
Overall, this article was comprehensive and presented the material in an unbiased and straightforward manner, which was really good! I think it would be nice to have some interesting bit of information in the introduction to really entice the viewer to continue reading; perhaps something about how some colonies can produce up to 6 liters of honey per year? I’m not sure if that’s a lot but it seems pretty unique. One of the edits I made was reducing the subtitle “Dominance hierarchy and reproductive suppression” down to just “Dominance hierarchy” as I think short titles are more effective in general, and in this case the reproductive suppression part was not necessary. It was great to see an image of the species’ geographical region in the article. Kevin.george1 (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Final Review
This is a very well written article and honestly I could not find any grammatical or speech flow errors as I read it. I think it definitely has aspects that qualify this article for good article status, beginning with it's well-written flow and the unbiased voice used. The only changes I made were simply linking "euglossines" to the Euglossini wikipage, and "maculation" to the definition page as it is not a common knowledge word. I would agree with other reviews that the introduction could use more of a hook, but I am not an expert on this bee and do not know what "fun fact" would be appropriate. Wdsieling (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)