Talk:Parischnogaster mellyi

Nesting
While looking to see if there was more information on predators of P. mellyi, I found a fact describing why the nests are constructed to be narrow and long. I added this fact to the Nesting section. Dkrinock (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Review of article
In reviewing this article, I edited the content for grammar and clarity. I made a few minor corrections that did not change the content of the page; I just tried to make it read easier. I also added in hyperlinks to pages that would benefit the reader. For example, when the article discusses morphology, there are some anatomical structures that are not common, so I hyperlinked those so the reader can understand the content better. In terms of following the criteria for a good article, the writing is clear and information is well cited. The content is broad, neutral and stable. Although there is a very good picture for mating, this article would benefit from more images, such as morphology and the nest, so the reader can understand the content better. Also, a section on kin and genetic relatedness would really benefit this article. In knowing the roles of the queen and workers in relation to reproduction, the story of this wasp will really come together. Mhimmelrich (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions and comments
There is a lot of detail in this article, and I appreciated the visual of the phylogenetic tree fragment that was posted. I liked the picture of the nest being built, and I think it would be helpful to provide an actual picture of the insect itself. I cross-checked the wording you used with the wording used by Turillazzi (the author you reference the most), and it seems to be very similar in sentence structure and word choice, so that is something to be careful of. It would also be helpful if you included more internal links for words that might be unfamiliar to most readers, for instance the terms Dufour’s gland, tegumental glands, gastral terfum, etc. More specifically with regards to content, you are very thorough and manage to simultaneously present a lot of information, which is really impressive. In some cases, it might be helpful to go into more detail and provide more depth as well as breadth; more specifically, in the Nesting subsection of the Description and identification section, you briefly mention how percent wall sharing changes due to certain suspension factors, but this could use a more detailed explanation to show the significance of this finding. Lastly, the Predators section could be expanded upon and any defense mechanisms that the P. mellyi have developed would be helpful to include. I changed a few minor grammatical errors with regards to syntax. Rey_ks (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional feedback
JackieOh0223: Great job on this article - it's a really nice contribution to Wikipedia and (an added bonus) tells a good, readable story. If you wanted to turn this into a Good article candidate, I would suggest that you do the following


 * Taxobox
 * You listed Parisnogaster nigrifrons among the synonyms. Should it really be Parischnogaster?


 * Article lead
 * You should link hover wasp


 * Taxonomy
 * Italicize Stenogaster, Parischnogaster
 * Should it be 1972 or 1927? The taxobox gives a date of 1927, so one or the other is probably wrong


 * Do these taxonomists have wiki bios? (von Schulthess, Carpenter, etc.) Look them up and see if you can find articles to link to


 * Is that a typo in the quote? “makes in” or “makes it”?

Consider using convert for lengths
 * Morphology
 * Link colony cycle


 * Nesting
 * "nearby … neighboring nests" is redundant
 * "Material used…has two important features:" - if you say this, you shouldn’t then say "first" and "second"…the reader should be able to figure that out for themselves
 * Here also, consider using convert


 * Distribution and habit
 * (This and other section headers should not be capitalized)
 * "Quite unique" is redundant. Unique means singular.


 * Colony cycle
 * Italicize P.
 * Consider changing "while the colonies" -> "and"
 * Also "most typical" -> "typical"

(Again, not capitalized)
 * Elementary behaviors
 * Rather than using i, ii, etc., consider using * or # since these are automatically formatted by the software, and make for easier maintenance. (For example, if someone wanted to add a section between i and ii, they would currently have to renumber everything from ii onward. If you used # the numbers would increment automatically. Keep in mind that everything you write will probably be edited by someone else in the future.)


 * Dominance hierarchy and group social structure
 * Third sentence - link fitness. It's also better to structure sentences in such a way that you don't start them with 'first', 'second', etc. Since you said that there were three options, it’s best not to repeat the numbers
 * The parenthetical "in fact…" should be avoided - "in fact" is conversational rather than encyclopedic writing. In this case, you should just say something like (nests are founded by single females, see colony cycle )


 * Patrolling behavior
 * Consider re-phrasing the first sentence about the landmark. Using 'landmark' in this context is a bit non-standard, and can be confusing on first read.
 * Link gaster


 * Armament-ornamentation model
 * Can you explain this model a little better? It doesn’t look like there’s a wiki article about this, and it isn’t something that the average reader would be aware of, so consider adding some explanation. In addition, since this isn’t a proper noun, it shouldn’t be capitalized.


 * External links

These should be formatted as * [Abdominal substance collection by ‘’Parischnogaster mellyi’’	http://link.springer.com/content/esm/chp:10.1007/978-3-642-32680-6_3/file/MediaObjects/270754_1_En_3_MOESM4_ESM.mpg]

Again, thank you for this contribution. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk 17:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)