User talk:Beesbewithyou/sandbox

Hello this is my talk page

Addressing Peer Review 2
I have changed my titles to the headings to eliminate redundancy from the title of the page and deleted the double wording. Thank you! Beesbewithyou (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Round 2: Global edits: You did a great job at linking words in your article to other related articles on Wikipedia. This makes it easy to comprehend the information presented. One edit I would make is in the headings for your section on mutualisms and climate change. I would not repeat the scientific name of the species in these sections since the reader knows what organism you are talking about. The scientific names in the headings can be distracting and repetitive. Local Edits: Under the systematics section, you repeated the word "than" in the second sentence. Jenniehorstmann (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Jennie Horstmann

Peer review 2:
Global edits: I really enjoyed learning about Bombus balteatus! Overall, I found the structure and flow of your article is well written. The only real global edit I could see what be to possibly place the morphology and mutualism sections together. It seems that flowing from talking about long tongues into how and why that tongue has evolved to exploit mutualistic environments. After explaining these relationships I would then go into systematics.

Local edits: For smaller edits I would suggest possibly giving the common name of this species (if there is one). Also, additional information on how Bombus balteatus can adapt its own morphology in the first section would be a good idea. Do you mean the species as a whole or a single individual? - Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wshoenberger (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Addressing Peer Review
I have implemented the global edits about where to move information, and trying to add to sections that were lacking on information. I will do more research into the mating patterns of this specific bee and try to formulate a short description in order to address these questions. I have changed grammatical recommendations provided by both of the reviewers and I will do more research into the mechanisms on how they specialize on angiosperms other than their long tongue matching the long corollas.

In addition, I have added citations and a definition of corolla to relieve any confusion.

Beesbewithyou (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article contains a lot of interesting information! I like how you have split your article into shorter, easier to digest sections, but I think some of the information in your section titled “Climate Change and Bombus balteatus” would be better placed in the section about mutualisms and coevolution (specifically, the last couple sentences) so that similar ideas are places together and are easier to understand for readers.

Also, I would have liked to read more about the mating characteristics of these bees

-	What are the mechanics of copulation?

-	Do males die after mating, like honeybees?

-	Is there any sort of sperm plug in this species?

You mentioned corollas a few times in the article, but I was unfamiliar with this term so I had to look it up to fully understand what you were saying. It might be helpful to other readers if you provided a short definition or a link to a definition so that they can easily check if they’re unsure.

On a smaller note, I think it might be more fitting with encyclopedic tone to refrain from saying things like “studies show”, etc. Also, there are a few statements in your section on climate change that do not appear to be cited (e.g. 3rd and 4th sentences). Akl95 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I enjoyed reading the section and think it is well-written and interesting.

There were just a few small edits in terms of wording: - In the first line under Systematics is says "all which" but it might flow a little better if you changed it to "all of which" -The sentence that begins "this expansion of niche...is considered a highly specialized": the "a" in that sentence should probably be removed so that it reads "is considered highly specialized"

The section on climate change was well-written, but some of the sentences are a little long and you may consider breaking them up into multiple sentences or just re-wording them-it does work how it is though, so that might just be based on personal preference.

I agree with what was said above in that some of the information could be distributed a between the paragraphs; for example, you touch on how they specialize on angiosperms in that first section but you could go into a little more detail there about how they specialize and the mechanisms by which they do so.

My suggestions for general additions were already stated above, I would just be interested to know a little more about their mating system and reproductive methods. 68.188.103.121 (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Outline Comments
Even though this is likely already your plan, I would suggest that your entire addition be a single section with your three outlined topic points being three subsections. Also, I would consider moving “benefits to both the ecosystem and the organisms themselves” to the conservation (sub)section as it can better emphasize for the reader why they should care about functional redundancy especially in terms of conservation. Finally, make sure to emphasize that your topic is over functional redundancy in either the section title or first sentence of the section since you will be discussing functional diversity, functional redundancy, and functional groups in your first subsection (history). Overall, I am excited to see the finished product, as this is a very interesting topic! LetMinnow (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider this to be a very solid outline. I can tell you have experience working both with this topic, and with using Wiki. I'm not sure if it was just the way it came up, but I could only see five listed sources. obviously you will need more than that if you don't already. Lmsvf6 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Functional Draft Comments
Your draft is very well organized and gives a clear description of the topics you are covering. It is very understandable and well suited for a Wikipedia audience. My biggest suggestion is that you add a second paragraph to each section that details two or three organisms/interactions which exemplify the topic you are describing. Also, after you define both functional diversity and functional redundancy, I would add an example of a simple model “situation/organism” for further clarification of the specific topic’s definition. Finally, I was really interested in how functional diversity/redundancy applies to conservation efforts. It may be worthwhile to add a separate conservation section. LetMinnow (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Second draft comments

Great choice for a topic! The information you added definitely helps round out the understanding of the subject. Since it is an abstract concept, it would be good to have concrete examples to relate to the topic. I'm not sure of the purpose of the scientific investigation section; is it supposed to be putting functional groups in context of ecosystems, or saying that functional groups are determined through research? There could be a clearer message there. Finally, the definition of a functional group in the intro could be more clear. I know it's vague since functional groups can be found in all forms of life, but backing it up with examples may give it a little clarity.

I like the conservation section because it is so important to think about! Have you read anything regarding the USFWS approach to conservation of endangered species? It's essentially a single-species conservation concept, which goes against the findings in your last sentence, "If this is the case, losing a species (which lowers functional diversity) will not always lower ecosystem function, due to overlap, and thus it is most important to conserve a group, rather than an individual." If you have the time, I think adding a little more on what is actually being done in conservation (and how it is not always the most effective because they're not considering functional groups) would expand the topic. Overall I enjoyed reading it and you had a great topic! Beeology (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)