Talk:Scaptotrigona postica

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mira.tbaum. Peer reviewers: Shelly May, Sayabery, Mmc7777, Brandon.eng, KimCourtney, Danakes6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
This article had a lot of great information in it. I revised a few sentences for more clarity in the sentence structure and word choice. In addition, I looked at some of the sentences which did not appear to have a citation at any point after them. For example, the last sentence of the appearance section did not have one at the end of it but it was related to the sentence before so I moved the citation to the end. I also made the "Shape" subsection in the nest section came second because it seemed more logical to talk about what the nest looks like before describing who the players are who are in the nest. Other than that, I was just making grammatical changes and ways of making the writing as clear as possible.--Danakes6 (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danakes6 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Overall, this article provides a unique look at the S. postica, and covers a wide variety of behavioral patterns and characteristics. I first made the correction of italicizing S. postica in the last sentence of the introduction. I then linked “Brazil” and “tropical rain forests” to their respective Wikipedia pages so that readers would be able to better understand the habitat and location of the S. postica. Furthermore, the following sentence was cited two citations listed at the end of the sentence: “his increases the genetic variance in the offspring. Furthermore, the drones mating with the queen have low genetic relatedness due to drifting of drones between colonies”.[14][15] It would be preferable if the citations were separated, and listed with their respective facts so that there is not confusion as to where the information came from. I would also suggest re-wording the following sentence: “The nests range from 3–7 meters above ground with a canopy overhead, approximately 15–20 meters above the nest.”[2]  This sentence appears to be a dangling modifier, in which “15-20 meters above the nest” appears to describe the nest, rather than the canopy. I would re-phrase the sentence to be read in the following manner: “In terms of nest location, nests are built approximately 3–7 meters above ground, and approximately 15-20 meters below a canopy overhead.”[2] I would also recommend adding citations to sections of “Thermoregulation” and “Genetic Relatedness.”  While there are citations at the end of the paragraph, it would be much more effective to cite each individual sentence, especially when there are multiple sources that were utilized. A map in the taxobox would also have been a good addition. Mmc7777 (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Great organization and detail in your article! The supplementary pictures were nice to have while reading. I liked how you made it really easy to read, especially in the worker section with the breakdown of ages. I found it really interesting how the males can only mate with one female and that drones drift between different colonies. The article was very thorough, so I only edited the grammatical errors I could find and rearranged some of the sentence structures. I also bolded the common name and added a few more hyperlinks. Shelly May (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! I found this article to have a breadth of information. However, I would argue that while the article is broken down into many sections to organize this information, some of the headings are lacking in substance. As such, I think it would be a good idea to condense some of your sections (for example the individual subheadings within Nest and Colony members) so that each section has a sufficient amount of information. While a wall of text is intimidating to read, excessive white space is just as detrimental. Nevertheless, great work so far! Brandon.eng (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Review for Class
The page for S. postica was very well written and developed; there was a wide range of topics with extremely detailed information, ranging from specific characteristics of the nests to several different factors of kin selection. I wanted to just point out that I noticed a few areas where there was a lack of references: I saw this in the Size subsection of the Nest section, as well as in the Taxonomy and Phylogeny section. I tried to find where this information was found, but there were so many references to go through that I thought I would just point it out to you and see if you can remember where you found that information. Great job overall! Sayabery (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits and comments
Hi! I enjoyed reading this page but to further improve it, I made some organizational edits. I moved the order of the headings to make it flow better, and changed each subsection under the “Behavior” section to regular sections because I didn’t think you needed to specifically have the “Behavior” section in order to explain that each section was about behavior. Also, I combined the “Appearance” section and the “Colony members” section because they were about topics that were very closely related and could complement if they were in the same section. I noticed some places were missing citations so I noted the sentences that needed citations. I think it would be helpful if you added more specific information on the lengths of workers/drones and queens since you mention that the queens are much larger in size but only average length of the species is given. Lastly, even though the species is mainly found in Brazil, I would still add Peru on the map in the taxobox since they still can be found there. Hope my edits and comments were helpful! KimCourtney (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
I enjoyed reading your article – it seems like this genus is less commonly written on in our class, so it was interesting to learn about a new species. I liked the range distribution map, but you could add more of the regions (mainly Peru) that you mention where they are also found. Your sections on reproduction and kin selection were very well researched and well written, and I was overall impressed by the number of sources you are able to draw from in writing your article. The article was well linked and well cited. There was a short sentence in the reproduction section (the very first one) that could be cited. The introduction of the article was also well written, flowed well, and gave a good summary of what to expect for the rest of the article. The sectioning of the article was also appropriate, and flowed logically as well. This was helpful, especially since some other articles had out of place sections that made the article a little awkward in terms of organization. There were a few areas with random spaces or symbols that I also deleted. You might also want to consider removing broken links that don’t link to specific Wikipedia articles. Overall great work and I hope you can get a good article status on this! Chtsai016 (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)