Talk:Parischnogaster jacobsoni

Comments
This article is very informative. There are a couple of places where I replaced words, such as in the lead section where you wrote "view investigated species" and I changed it to "few investigated species." Most of the sentences are very clear. However, there is a sentence in the very last section that I believe is a bit confusing. It would help if you could clarify the sentence about the compound in the venom being species specific. The latter part of the sentence is unclear. Also, two sentences in the reproduction and child-rearing section both begin with "Finally" and appear to have the same meaning. I recommend checking those sentences and seeing if you intended to only write one of them. Lastly, I linked your article to the page on L. flavolineata and I added the Vespidae project banner and Wiki insects banner to your talk page. Overall, great job!!! Three is me (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and repairs to the page! I went ahead and deleted the sentence about venom that you addressed since it was confusing and contained non-crucial information. I also fixed the sentences under the reproduction and child-rearing section so that they both do not begin with the word "finally." Thanks again! Marecto (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Some Edits
Overall, this page is very thorough and is well written. I have made some small grammatical changes throughout the page. I do propose some other edits though. The last sentence in the overview reads, “While it is a more complex organism than other wasps in the Parischnogaster genus, the genus overall is relatively primitive with respect to social wasps as a whole.” This is a grammatically incorrect sentence as the noun (“genus”)  immediately following the subordinating clause needs to be the noun that is reference in the subordinating clause. In this case it seems that “the genus” should be changed to “the species,” but I didn’t want to edit this without verifying. I linked “Stenogastrine” in the “Taxonomy and Phylogeny” section to its Wikipedia page. In the “Description and identification” section, the following sentence was hard to understand and is also a dangling modifier, which is the same type of mistake as described above: “According to the theory that conserving material by utilizing wall-sharing cells and constructing structures to protect the nest are evidence of evolved wasp characters, the P. jacobsoni constructs what is perhaps the most primitive of all wasp nests.” I have made grammatical edits in the “Distribution and habitat” section. In the “Colony cycle” section, there is a missing word in the following sentence: “The foundation of each nest is generally by a single female founder haplometrotically. “ I also linked “nidification” to its Wikipedia page in this section. I also recommend shortening/simplifying the following sentence: “Subordinates attempt to avoid the dominant or, when avoidance is impossible, they halt completely, turn their head to the side and, after being inspected by the antennae of the dominant individual (often considered to be a form of solicitation), emit fluid that the dominant often sucks up.” I also made minor edits to the “Reproductive succession” heading. Alison Gozlan (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and repairs to the page! As for the last sentence in the lead section, I replaced the word 'it' to P. jacobsoni so that the sentence is clearer. However, the sentence was not grammatically incorrect as the genus I refer to in the second clause of the sentence is Parischnogaster, which was included in the first clause of that same sentence. In terms of your critique of the sentence in the description and identification section, I clarified the wording to make it clearer; however, once again, the sentence as it originally was written was not grammatically incorrect as there was no dangling modifier but rather an explanation of a theory that would support the assertion that P. jacobsoni constructs primitive nests. Lastly, there is no missing word in the sentence "The foundation of each nest is generally by a single female founder haplometrotically." Each nest is found by a single foundress; the sentence to which you refer is simply written in passive rather than active voice. Marecto (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Hi Michelle! These are possible areas of improvement: Your article has many sections that have no links. You can make a link like this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. There are many opportunities to add more links to other articles, especially for interesting vocabulary words, concepts, and proper nouns. The “Colony cycle” section needs links to external articles. As of now there are none. You could make links for: “haplometrotically,” “cohabit,” “norm,” “ovarian development,” “nidification,” “usurp,” “cooperation,” “Parischnogaster,” and “hover wasps.” The “Division of labor” section needs links to external articles as well. There are none at the moment. You could make links for: “Parischnogaster,” “social hierarchies,” “labor division schemes,” “Stenogastrinae,” “dominance hierarchies,” “reproductive capacity,” “alpha female,” “ovaries,” “patrolling,” “ovarian development,” “subordinate,” and “forager.” The “Reproductive suppression” section needs links to external articles. No links at the moment. You could make links for: “Domination acts,” “ovaries,” “alpha female,” “egg reabsorption,” “aggression,” “inhibit,” “usurp,” “ovarian development suppression,” and “Vespidae.” Other sections that are devoid of links are: “Adult recognition,” “Nest and brood recognition,” “Reproduction and child-rearing,” “Self-grooming,” “Daily activity,” “Strategic nest position,” “Against small intruders,” and “Against large intruders.” You can add more to “Taxonomy and phylogeny” by discussing the implications of each taxonomic classification for your species. For example, what are some characteristics that all Parischnogaster species have in common? And/or you can discuss the history of how this species was named. Who named it, and when? Were there any changes made to its name or classification over time? For “Description and identification,” you could also go further and describe the physical characteristics of workers, pupae, and eggs. If you can find the information on this you can also go into a description of their anatomy, hydrocarbons, and life stages (egg, larva, pupa, adult). You can also talk about the physical features that distinguish adults, how workers differ from queens and adult males. For “Distribution and habitat,” you can add a map of the distribution for this species and/or compare the distribution with the distribution of other local or regional wasps nearby. Overall, cool article! It was interesting to read! Compliments on your thoroughness and beautiful organization! :) Carzhong (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and addition of links! As per your suggestion, I added external links throughout the article. In terms of your suggestion to add more to the taxonomy and phylogeny section, I think a discussion of characteristics that all Parischnogaster wasps have in common would be more suited to the genus page rather than this specific species. In addition, I already included who named the species as well as when. I also agree that in the description and identification section, I think it would be wonderful to include all the information you suggested I add (i.e. physical characteristics of workers, pupae, and eggs; a description of their anatomy, hydrocarbons, and life stages (egg, larva, pupa, adult); physical features that distinguish adults, how workers differ from queens and adult males). However, there is simply not enough research done on this species for me to do so. Lastly, I do not have the technical skills to create a map of the kind that you suggest, but I agree it would be helpful. Thanks again! Marecto (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A few minor edits
This is a really great article! The text flows well, it is interesting, and it presents lots of relevant information. One thing that I would steer away from is using words like "not much is known" "this wasp is understudied" because in the (unlikely) event that a bunch of research comes out on this wasp in the near future, you don't want to have to go back and take that out of this article. In my articles, I try to write so that even in several years (unless certain theories/hypotheses are disproved), everything will hold true, so I try not to make statements that are subject to change over time (just to make things easier!). That's an idea, I definitely don't think you have to go back and change it, but it's just a suggestion!

Something else that might be nice is a few more pictures throughout the article. While you may not be able to find more images of this wasp species, all the pictures do not have to relate directly to the wasp. It might be informative to include a picture of a species of ant that is guarded against (if that info is known), or a chemical structure of the venom (in case some chemists are reading your article, this would be a nice thing to see!). Again, just a suggestion! You've already got an A-class article here. Gaharrison94 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! The reason I included statements like "not much is known" etc. was because of other reviewers asking why such information was not included on my page in the first place. Additionally, I do think it is helpful to notify the reader that thus far in time, this particular species has not been extensively studied. Wikipedia is continually being updated so I think that at the present, I should leave such phrases in the text. As for your suggestion to add more pictures, currently there are no others of this wasp in particular to post. Additionally, in the articles that talk about the ants that attack P. jacobsoni nests, no species name is given. Thanks again! Marecto (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)