Talk:Parischnogaster alternata

Peer Review
Thank you for writing this entry. I believe this article’s strength is the defense section which gives great in-depth discussion about how Black Hover wasps defend themselves. I found it interesting that their different defenses seem to negate each other’s effect (between a larger nest and blending into the surrounding forest), yet actually all work together to defend the nest. I believe this article misses and should include a description of the queen (or co-queens), development and reproduction section, and a discussion of males. The description of the queen would be useful to help people differentiate between workers and queens. A development and reproduction section would also be helpful in better understanding why there is such a skewed female to male ratio which would provide extra insight and how they attract one another for mating. Lastly a thorough discussion of males would help provide insight into how they reproduce and what their role is – whether just for reproduction or for other reasons – instead of just the couple of sentences placed throughout the article. It could always use more references and descriptions, and under the co-foundress section, there is the quote "two or females" which I believe needs to be corrected. But overall this article was well done.

Raymundo.marcelo (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
This entry meets many of the criteria of a good article. It is well-written, neutral, and verifiable. Including an image would improve this article. The article was classified as an orphan. I added links within the article and from related articles so that the article would no longer be considered an orphan. The links that had existed in the article linked to pages that did not exist, so I fixed those. In addition, symbols were present (perhaps from copying and pasting the article from a word document?), so I deleted those symbols. I also changed the spelling of misspelled words (such as Stenogastrinae). In addition, I changed the importance to high importance.

MadisonPomerantz (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article was very thorough and contained detailed, verifiable research. However, certain sections lack depth, such as that for Distribution and Habitat. The article also had a few run-on sentences, which I tried to break up for readability sake. Otherwise I added a couple more linking words and I suggested that the Colony Cycle paragraph maybe be divided further into subsections. The article maintains a neutral tone as well so good job overall. VGurusamy (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions
This article did a nice job describing P. alternata. The overview was a little bogged down by details. The taxonomy and phylogeny section was nicely done. I added a few links to other Wikipedia pages to integrate your article into Wikipedia more. Maybe you could add some more details about the physical description of the wasp. I moved details about the nest from the description and identification section to distribution and habitat section because it is a more logical fit there. When you talk about the nests you should briefly mention in a sentence how P. alternata uses the dilution effect since you mentioned this in the overview but don't go into detail until the defense section but it is also relevant to nests. You do a nice job explaining the colony cycle. You could explain what antennal combat is and how taxing or dangerous it is, i.e. what are the risks of this behavior? You could also go into more detail on eusociality by explaining haplodiploidy sex-determination. The egg deposition section was interesting. I don't think the word Black in black hover wasp should be capitalized. You did a very nice job with this article overall. It was very informative. nef614 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You should move the predation subsection out of under the defense heading since those two are fundamentally different. But other than that this is a great article!

Peer Review
Overall, I thought this was a very good article. I changed the order of the headings so that “Egg Deposition” was not its own subheading. It fits under the “Behavior” section very well, and so I moved it to the end of this section in order to match the outline for Wikipedia pages on Vespidae. I also removed links to Wikipedia pages that do not exist. MadisonPomerantz (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for GA status
Hi! Your article covers a lot of material so its getting close to that coveted GA status.

Here are some things that could help bring it closer to a good article:

The most immediate thing you can do is to add some photographs. Most GA’s seem to have a lot of photo’s in their articles. I did a few image searches and didn’t find anything on the Black hover wasp, so I’m assuming you’ve had the same problem. But this is just something to keep in mind.

Another general thing the article needs is more references. GA’s seem to have around 20 - 30 references.

The description and identification section should be expanded on. This section in particular seems to be well developed in good articles. This would also be a great place to put a photo if you can find one.

The sections colony cycle, co-foundress, egg deposition and nest mimicry do not have any links. Some of the other sections were lengthy and only had one or two links. GA’s usually have several links.

Also in general I think that the writing can be improved. I changed some wording in the introduction to make things more concise, but I noticed similar problems throughout the article as I was going through it. I think it would benefit the article an editor went through it and changed the language in certain places. Micah.Steinbrecher (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)