Talk:Ropalidia revolutionalis

Comments
The article was very through, so much so that I decided to break it down a bit. The behavior heading had many subheadings in it, so I broke them down to showcase the different subsets, you can change the hierarch as you see fit. The remaining miscellaneous behaviors I made independent headings. Many citations throughout the article were in the middle of sentences, I moved them to the end of the sentence. As it turns out, you can totally have them there, that was a misunderstanding I had that they should be at the end. You can look at the edit history and delete those changes if you want to, they're fine by the relevant phrases. Also I changed your subject headings to only use lowercase letters after the first word, which is just a wikipedia stylistic thing. And you forgot the course banner! Here it is! The content is very developed for a new article, it looks great overall. Annamargit (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Trinity, thank you for your article on R. revolutionalis, I found it to be interesting and to have a wide breadth of information. I would challenge you to take a readers' stance and thus from that perspective, expound on the already existing sections. For example, I would definitely discuss the implications of being part of a certain family/subfamily/genus and with that, how it relates to an incredibly important characteristic that I think you may have missed: swarm-founding behavior. Furthermore, just general house-keeping like finding a picture (which is difficult, I know) but perhaps leaving the box blank as opposed to having File: Stick-nest Brown Paper Wasp.jpg would give off a less sloppy appearance. I would also challenge you to go into more depth about your foraging/diet section underneath Division of Labor.

All in all, I found your article to be interesting and informative, just missing a couple pieces. Thanks for the read!

Spencer Tong (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Suggestions
Hey Trinity!

Feel free to use some of these suggestions: These are possible areas of improvement. Some are more important than others (like adding links, which is more important). The terminology in your article should be linked to Wikipedia articles discussing them. For example: Manual of Style/Linking

In headings, only the first word and proper nouns need to be capitalized. In the above comment Anna says she's already done it but the way it shows up on my browser, it looks like everything in the titles is still capitalized.

Your picture of the wasp is not appearing on the page, there is just a link to the picture file. You should probably change that so that we can see the picture right on the page.

You can add more to Taxonomy/Phylogeny by discussing the implications of each taxonomic classification for your species.

For Description/Identification, if you can find the information on this you can 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/Habitat, you can include a map of their distribution, and/or compare the distribution of R. revolutionaris with the distribution of other local or regional wasps nearby.

In general, there are several headings with sparse discussions and the page might read more smoothly if you consolidate some of the headings that are related to each other. (For example, all the subheadings under Division of Labor can be consolidated into one paragraph). It turns out that Anna probably stretched out the headings for you, and I disagree with this style choice because I think it makes the article more choppy to read. If there is enough information to beef up all the subheadings she created, it's probably a good idea to separate them out like that, but the way it is now, I think it would be better off if you re-consolidated your paragraphs.

Overall, cool article! It was interesting to read! :)

Carzhong (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments
The introduction would benefit from the addition of basic information.

The taxonomy and phylogeny section lacks information as to what classifies both the genus and the species. I suggest adding additional information that addresses both morphological and behavioral characteristics that define members of the genus and species.

The distribution and habitat section could use additional information as to what climates the wasp prefers (i.e. whether they prefer warm, dry, temperate climates, etc.)

The colony section cycle is thorough but what would really make it great is adding the months that each event occurs so that I can get a better idea of when each event happens.

Lastly, the Human-wasp interaction section would also benefit from additional information. Ideally, I’d like to know in which environments people deal with wasps, whether that is primarily in cities or suburbs. Another thing that would be good to add is how common these wasps are and whether or not they are a common nuisance.

Peivaz (talk)