Talk:Polistes exclamans

Untitled
Well this is already a good article isn't it? Haha, well its nice, A range map could be added for this species though, but thats about the only thing missing. Currently theres some Wikipedia warning thing about linking to too many disambiguation pages, I'm not exactly sure what that means but you could look into fixing it. There was a spot where it appears italics weren’t turned off so the whole second half of the paragraph was in italics for no reason, I fixed that. There were many spots where I did some mild rephrasing. Overall this is a delightful article. Whenever there is a random obscure word that I don't know, it links to another page (ex. diapause) which is a great alternative to bulky in text explanations. Annamargit (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall, this page is thorough and well written. The main edits I’ve made have been linking the page to other pages. For example, I linked the “Vespidae” page to this page. I also linked all of the species listed in the last sentence in the “Taxonomy and Phylogeny” section to their Wikipedia pages, for those that had pages. In the following sentence (found in the “Description and Identification” section) the pronoun it is unclear: “It also may have yellow markings on its head.” In the “Distribution and Habitat” section, the following quote is missing a citation: “As indicated by Strassmann and Orgren, “Nests are approximately circular, and have a single off-center pedicel usually located towards the top of the nest. Cells near the pedicle are the oldest.” Since this part was quoted it is essential that a source is listed. Moreover, the page could be further developed by adding a distribution map or conservation information. Finally, the following sentence (in “Queen Characteristics”) has 2 citations: “P. exclamans lives in a hierarchical society with one queen that lays the eggs. However, all of the females have the same morphology and they all have the physiological capability of taking over the egg laying if necessary (queen death, queen migration).[8][13] “ It would be best if you could break up the citations such that the reader could determine what material came from which reference. The same goes for the second sentence in the “Description and Identification” section.

Alison Gozlan (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Article creation
Hey everyone,

I created this article for a class and will be continuing to edit and add to it throughout the next couple of months. This is just a first copy so there will be more content and fine tuning on the way. If you have any comments or feedback please let me know, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks, --Jeremy.winkler (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review
This is a great start to the article. I really learned a lot about the behavior of the species! I mostly edited for grammar, word choice, and concision. There were several minor errors in punctuation and syntax which I fixed. I also changed some of your words to ones that I felt fit better. As far as concision, I just took out repetitive parts of sentences and combined others. For recommendations, I think that a lot of information about this species needs to be added. I know that you started the article, and we are only focusing on behavior, but a little bit more background on the species would be nice. It would also be great if you could find a picture to add. I think this will give your reader a better idea of the animal that you are writing about. Your headings could use some work. According to the guidelines for naming sections on the insects project, almost everything you have should fall under behavior and ecology or reproduction. You might want to look at the article for the ant for some more recommendations. I think it is a featured article, and it might be helpful if you mirrored the structure of yours after it to increase the rating of this article. E.middlebrook (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My edits were similar to the previous edits. I found that I mainly corrected repetition of phrases and pronoun usage. For many pronouns, "them" wasn't quite clear enough in regard to whom you were referring to. I agree with many of the comments above me. The article will really improve greatly if you added some photos and some other background information. This would allow you to have major topics such as behavior that contain subtopics, like you have now. It is a great start to the article and is well on its way. In the future, be careful of being too repetitive and using too many pronouns. Katims90 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is overall a great article with lots of materials. I re-organized some sentences to make the article flow well. I also corrected some grammatical mistakes and edited unclear pronouns. I know you started this article and wrote mainly about behaviors and ecology, so I added a heading to include all the subsections. I made some additional links to other Wikipedia pages. To make the article more complete, you might add a few pictures and some descriptions about this organism outside the scope of behaviors. I tried to look for images online but not sure if they were for fair use, so I ended up not uploading them, but it would be nice if you could add one in the infobox. Ps. I am confused about one thing under the section of "satellite nests". On the fist line, it reads "A queen will fly somewhere between .15-11m away". Here do you mean 0.15-11m? It will be helpful if you could clarify.--Tianyi Cai (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Jeremy, great job on this article! There was a lot of great information on the species, and I really learned a lot from reading your additions. I mainly made grammar/wording changes and cleaned up some fragments. I also added a few hyperlinks here and there. I had a question about the difference between the two parasitic moth species. Under the Parasitoids section, you started to talk about their exact difference by mentioning that the C. iphitalis waits around outside of the nest for (wasp?)larvae to emerge, but what exactly does the E. polistis do differently? Does it just directly attack the wasps in the nests after reproducing? Ihyuan (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I made some grammar/wording changes and added a few hyperlinks. I also italicized P. exclamans multiple times and reformatted the degree symbol. Overall good job. Zhangt2413 (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Great job so far! This article has come a long way since you created it. After the other two reviewers looked through it, many of my changes were minor pieces that needed touching up. I worked partially on grammar, and some linking to other Wiki articles. One thought to consider is maybe rearranging the sub-headings and their names. For example, having a morphology section where you can talk about differences between queen and worker castes, a reproduction section to discuss queen determination, sexual attraction, parasitism, etc. A section on etymology and another on phylogeny would be helpful, too. Otherwise, things look good here- I'm excited to track the progress of the page! Nsavalia23 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review-Fall 2014
Overall a really good article! I really enjoyed it all and I learned a lot. You have a great variety of sections. I mostly just made a few minor changes throughout the article, and added some links. However, I have a couple of further suggestions. Your second to last sentence in the overview section seems a little out of place. I would have a look at this to see if any changes can be made. Make sure you are italicizing subgenera as well as genera and species names. I do not think that you need to list the states in which it is found in both the ‘description’ and ‘distribution’ sections, and I think it might be more logical to just leave it in the ‘distribution’ section. Additionally, your ‘distribution’ section is a tad repetitive, so it might be nice to make it more concise.

In the later part of your article, I would take a look at your ‘gerontocracy’ section, it is a little bit confusing. Overall, I would take a careful look at your citations. I think there are some sentences that are lacking proper reference. For example, you directly quote an article in your ‘range extension’ section, however, you do not put the reference. Finally, I would watch the use of the semicolon. While it is a useful punctuation mark, I found myself getting confused. Again, overall a really strong article. You have a lot of information that gives a really great picture of your species. Kirinne (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Kirinne

Peer Review
Thoroughly excellent article but if I had to give any criticism, it would be to the Parasitoids section. Though it does go into detail about how these parasitoids attack the nest and gives example species, I think the next step would be to explain how P. exclamans actually reacts to this time of parasitism. Are all attacks by these parasitoids successful? If not, what does P. exclamans do in order to inhibit this activity? If they are, what is the mechanism for circumenventing any of the colony defense behaviors of P. exclamans? Regardless, congratulations on a well-done article!

Spencer Tong (talk)

Solitary nest founding by queens?
The main paragraph states Due to solitary nest founding by queens, P. exclamans has extended its range in the past few decades..., but I find that their nests are founded consistently by a queen and a sister foundresses. Unless I am terribly mistaken in identification over the past 12 years. Central New Mexico. I am also confused by the very premise of the statement, as solitary nest founding would make the species more vulnerable to failure and slower to propagate. - 97.123.161.66 (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)