Talk:Polistes canadensis

Peer Review
I fixed multiple grammar and wording mistakes within your paper. The writing style could certainly be improved in this article. I liked how you included background on the name of the species (how the name was created by Linnaeus who was misinformed that this species exists in Canada), because this is unique information pertaining to this species only. I think the colony cycle section could be expanded upon. At what periods during the year does the cycle take place? What are the stages within the colony cycle? I also looked at the sources you used and noticed some useful information that I wish you had included. For example, the Juvenile Hormone (JH) is very unique to this species (I have never heard of it before), so I wish you had added it to the behavior section. If you wish to expand upon this article further you can add this. I also thought you could have added more about the fact that this is a paper wasp. You do discuss what the nests are made of but how are the nests made and is this different from other species? Why is its common name the red paper wasp? A picture of the nest (if you can find one) might help the readers picture this wasp species in its natural environment. Overall, I liked your article and think that the content is pretty good. I also think the resources you used are scholarly and insightful. Probertsg (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A few recommendations
(1) From Wikipedia, it says that the sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Remember whatever is not common knowledge needs to be followed by an inline citation.

(2) Include a picture so readers can see more clearly the species’ physical characteristics.

(3) Link more terms to other Wikipedia pages more words you link, the better your page will be to readers. (4)Italicize subgenus (5) Break up long sentences to be more concise (6) It would be nice to include a section on how these species interact with humans. Are they considered pests? What are the stings like?
 * a.Under overview section, I would link hibernation, caterpillar, larvae and invertebrates.
 * b.	Under taxonomy and phylogeny, I would link Canada, Nicaragua, Brazil, and South America.
 * c.	Under description and identification, I would link thorax. Also, explain what ‘tergite’ is if you cannot link it.
 * d.	Under colony cycle and dominance hierarchy (and a few others), there are no words that are linked. Generally the
 * Under taxonomy and phylogeny, “ The red paper wasp is a member of the New World Polistes, which are found in the subgenus Aphanilopterus. Because morphological variation among the Aphanilopterus is small…”
 * a.Under kin selection, this sentence is very long and can get confusing. - “While many female workers choose to care for their nestmates while waiting to become breeders in their original nests, for younger female workers, the benefits of direct fitness may be greater than the benefits of indirect fitness; these younger females can choose to leave their original nests for a more uncertain future (in terms of indirect and direct payoffs) to co-found a new nest.”

Elee715 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions and Comments
Three is me (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Your article contained a lot of interesting material. I fixed some grammar mistakes, and I also found several subject-verb disagreements in your sentences, so I fixed those as well. I also found a sentence that was worded very poorly in the dominance hierarchy section, so I reworded it. In addition, the last sentence in your division of labor section is very confusing and seems very out of place. I would recommend revisiting that section and seeing if the sentence should be relocated, rephrased to make the meaning clearer, or removed altogether. I also linked the article to the page for Argentina since many red wasps are located there. Furthermore, the tenses in the reproductive suppression section continually switched tenses, so I tried to make them all present tense. Lastly, I found a really nice picture of your species on flickr open source photography. I believe you can use it or one of the other pictures on the website, so I would suggest that you look there for a picture. Otherwise, good job on your article.

Page Review
This was a very informative article overall. It was in particular, very specific on the behavior of the red paper wasp. The sections talking about hierarchy, reproductive suppression, and mating were very in depth and telling of the species. I feel that more information could be added to sections such as the Defense and Cost and benefits topics perhaps by using a few subheadings. I would suggest a couple additional adjustments to the article as well. A few more references and inline citations would be helpful in reassuring the validity of your writing. It could be mistaken that some of the information is based on your opinions. Secondly, I would consider changing the introduction. It is very dense with information which is later on repeated in the main body of the article. As far as your peers who have also commented with suggestions, I would reiterate that you should include a picture or two and link some important words to existing Wikipedia pages for the sake of thoroughness. Other than that, thank you for your contribution.Brandon.eng (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Article assessments
... should be independent. , could you have a look? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd need to look through the sources before I'd properly assess this (out of my topic area), and most of the sources I don't have easy access to. Some of the text seems a little suspicious (e.g. giving statistical data parenthetically in the text), and the article is severely underlinked, but the prose is generally ok and most of the basic encyclopedic information is there. Maybe a "C" for now, with upgrade to a "B" after source checking and copyediting? Sasata (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Better you than me :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much every article that's been tagged for WikiProject Vespidae has been assessed as B-class/High-importance. I don't doubt that they're "high" importance in the context of the course that is behind the Vespidae project (nor that they may be B-quality as far as what the instructor is expecting from the students). I've been reluctant to change the assessment of vespids, but they should probably all be re-evaluated (and I'm not a big fan of having the Insect banner replaced with the Vespidae banner; it doesn't seem useful to carve a few hundred vespid articles out from the main insect project, although I've no objection to adding the Vespidae banner in addition to the Insect banner). Plantdrew (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IN every one I've checked, it has been students assessing their own articles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am a student at Washington University. I wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article.I enjoyed the thorough explanation of the species in its behavioral tendencies and description. The most interesting thing I gathered from this article was that this species has a dominant queen wasp that subdues the aggressive behavior of the other females by stroking or using lateral abdominal vibrations. By doing this, she exercises absolute control. 3 categories in the outline that could be added are “interaction with other species,” “division of labor,” and “associated species.” “Interaction with other species” would be an important category to include, as the article does mention some parasites of the species, so an overarching category would help streamline the article. “Division of labor” would be an important category to include, as the author mentions that there is division of labor based on age, but does not elaborate. Finally, “associated species” should be included as it is important to guide the reader to different species similar to the red paper wasp if the reader is interested in finding more about the genus. This article has been rated “C-Class” on the quality scale, and “Low” on the importance scale. Reading the comments, there were many criticisms in the grammar and wording of the article, which probably contributed to the low ratings. - User:Eliseoh

Copyright issues
Source: Article: So, a closer look is warranted. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * younger workers perform within-nest tasks such as brood care, whereas older females perform higher risk tasks such as nest defense and foraging
 * While younger workers perform within-nest tasks such as brood care, older females perform riskier tasks such as nest defense and foraging.

See ENI. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC552932/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)