User talk:Dhara612/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Article Name - Arthropod Eye

Evaluating Content

Everything in the article is relevant to the topic of arthropod eyes, it discusses origins and evolution and specific organism examples. However, the information could be organized better. For example, having information such as how the horseshoe crab is typically used for eye research slightly detracts from the other information in the horseshoe crab section. I was not distracted by anything in the article, but there was also not much information on specific topics, such as Myriapods.

More information could be provided about genetic controls and how certain eye forms are expressed through gene types. For example, the article briefly mentions the dachshund gene's role in developing compound eyes but does not provide other types of eye genes. Also, the examples of organisms provided are very specific and there should be more general information on other arthropod eyes, not just specifically horseshoe crabs or myriapods. Broader titles such as those based on family or genus may be helpful in providing more information relevant to this topic. Moreover, majority of the sources are from either the 1990s or 2000s, and so it would be a good idea to have a more updated selection of information sources.

Overall, the organization of the article could be improved. Topics could be generalized and added, because currently there is only significant information provided about evolution and there are other factors related to arthropod eyes that could be addressed. A way to improve the article would be to add more information in the genetics section, and to also improve the introduction to be more of a background on arthropod eyes. Overall the article focuses mostly on origins and evolution but it could be improved through additional details regarding other areas such as the anatomy.

Evaluating Tone

The article appears neutral and does not appear to make any claims that are biased towards any particular position. It has an informational tone that directly provides facts, rather than pushing a certain viewpoint.

The majority of the provided information is regarding evolution, but this information is still not biased to a certain viewpoint so there is no underrepresented or overrepresented viewpoint. The intent overall adheres to providing information.

Evaluating Sources

The links for the citations do work and lead to journal articles. Claims that are cited have sources that do indeed support them.

Not all facts are referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. For example the last sentence in the first paragraph regarding caterpillars still requires a citation to be substantiated. This is the only example of a statement that requires a citation in the article. All of the information provided appears to be from journal articles, so the sources are likely neutral. There is no apparent bias in the article.

Checking the talk page

There are no conversations occurring on the talk page. The only recent activity was a merge/move but that was it.

The article is rated C-class and is not a part of any WikiProjects.

Wikipedia discusses this topic in a broader way, trying to address different aspects of it. In class, we tend to focus on pollination and therefore would not go in such depth about specifically arthropod eyes.

Saleha's Evaluation
In the morphology section I think you should include the definition of clypeus. In the phylogeny section I think the wording of this sentence is a little awkward. "The first dispersal having occurred as far". In the sociality section I think that it would be helpful if you included more details and information on the concept of alarm signal inflorescences. This is something that I am not familiar with and found myself wanting more information on.

Content I think overall the content of your article looks great. There are just a few additions that I would make which i outlined above. I think in terms of structure, I am not sure if you need the kleptoparasitism section to be a seperate section. I think you could include that information under your general information section. I think you can also add a little more information on morphology, for example head size, or some other identifying characteristics if that is possible. Besides that I think your sections are in a good order, and make sense. I think you should definitely add some pictures.

Tone Your tone looks great! It is neutral exactly like wikipedia expects. You do not make any claims that are biased towards a certain viewpoint. The tone is informational, and you are simply providing facts and information about the species

1)The thing that the article did very well is that it is very detailed and informative. I feel like i learned a lot of information that I was not previously aware of. I was impressed by the amount of information you managed to gather because for many of these topics it is hard to look through scientific journals and find a lot of useful information 2and3)The changes I would suggest are all minor, and I have outlined them above. 4)I liked that you included information about kleptoparasitism. I am going to look for information about that for my bee species as well!

Great Job!

Salehaminhas (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Saleha

Sasha's Peer Review
Hey, this is some commentary I had for your peer review: What you wrote sounds good and seems to be written neutrally with sufficient citations. I would suggest moving some sentences around. You have a nice division of sections but could fit some things better by moving whats in one into another. For Sexual Dimorphism you could put that whole section under Morhphology as a subsection. I would also suggest putting your description about immature males and mature males from mating behavior under sexual dimorphism as it describes appearance more. The sentences in General Info could all be put under other sections since it is only a small section that doesn't really summarize main important information together. The sentence there on preference to Cucurbita pep could be put under Foraging Behavior after the sentence about being specialist or generalist. The size of the bees can be put into morphology. The flight season, months active, and geographic area where they pollinate could be put under foraging behavior. Other than this everything seems fine. You could try to fill some more sections or rearrange the order of the sections to flow better and emphasize whats more important, but I think your current list of sections is ordered nicely. I would also suggesting making links to other wikipedia pages for readers who may want more information or may not know something. For example, you can wiki link clypeus for a reader to be redirected to the clypeus page which defines and describes it. You can wikilink some of these: Neararctic, Ophrys (from Ophrys leochroma), kleptoparasitism, and Anchusa.

You did amazing! Sasha Mendez (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Olivia's peer review
Very clear and detailed! I have a few critiques, mostly on structure/grammar stuff. Firstly, in the phylogeny section, I do not think the sentences "Eucera, similar to Eucerini, are solitary by nature. They are able to pollinate both agricultural and naturally occurring plants." really belong in this section. I would put the information about pollination in another section and remove the comment about Eucera being solitary. Additionally, the first sentence in this paragraph, "The tribe Eucerini contains the genus Eucera, of which Eucera makes up 50% of the tribe" I think would be better structured and worded as, "Eucera belong to the tribe Eucerini and makes up 50% of it." Another pointer I have is to make sure that you italicise all of the species and genus names. Overall, awesome job. I can't think of any more critiques.

Mary's Comments
Phylogeny Section: I would remove the information regarding the sociality and plants they pollinate from this section, saving this information for a later section, because this has nothing to do with phylogeny.

General Information: If Peponapis and Xenoglossa have been added to the genus, I would refer to them as subgenus (if that is how the citation related to their grouping under Eucera recommends this as a proper way to deal with the new phylogeny). This might be something to ask Mike about. Redundancy (see below). I might propose eliminating this section and folding the size information into another section, then creating a new section related to Activity.

Sociality: I might create a subsection related to alarm signals on flowers. Starting with this information is too specific, and while it may be a component of sociality, is not the main component of what the section should be about.

Mating behaviors: Italicize species names. Good information.

Nesting Information: Good information

Foraging Information: Good information, italicize species names.

I might be a good idea to include examples of plant interactions present in other sections under this section, to keep things organized.

Kleptoparasitism: Italics.

Sexual Dimorphism:

Again, I would ask Mike about how to deal with the inclusion of Peponapis under the genus Eucera. If it should be included, I would not attach the label genus to these bees, but maybe subgenus.

Overall: There is some redundancy, where the information is presented twice (for example, body size is presented twice). I would read through and make sure that information is only presented once unless it is extremely relevant to the discussion in both sections. Reading through could also help you fine tune the organization of the article. The information you presented was good, a nice balance between generalizations and examples. Definitely could use some more citations for the information. I would definitely look into the Peponapis issue in detail to make sure that are not lumping to genera together when they are still recognized as distinct genera. Mary.p2019 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Val's Review!
Hey! I think that all the information you guys have so far is really great. I think that the next step might be to take these very technical sentences and add some connecting sentences that are able to give a reader that doesn't know anything about bees a more whole picture. It think especially with the kleptoparasitism section it would be really great to elaborate there. I really think by connecting ideas and creating large paragraphs will help make this draft complete. Otherwise I really like the citations and that how neat everything is so far. I think for each section that has a description maybe adding some pictures and other visual aids will help the reader a lot as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valxoxo48 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Eucera Peer Review
Great job on the article! The language is concise and there is not a lot of fluff. You cited most of your information very well and presented everything with little to no bias. I especially like how you highlighted phylogeny. If you could find/make a phylogenetic tree that would be awesome. I enjoy how you mapped out your sections, though there might be too many. Some sections might need more information such as Morphology and Kleptoparasitism. Overall, they have a good flow and cover a lot of the general information someone might be looking for. Maybe you could condense some of the sections like Sexual Dimorphism and Morphology or have a general life cycle or ecology section. I feel like the division of sections helps the reader find specific things faster, but some of them relate/touch on some info the other sections cover. There are definitely multiple ways to organize it and you should consider what sources you have available. If the articles exist I would add hyperlinks to them as they are referenced (ex: "...Tetralonia, Peponapis, Syntrichalonia, Cemolobus, Xenoglossodes and Xenoglossa."). Killer job though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm1806 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing more of your content on the live wikipedia page
Your sections that you have not yet posted are quite interesting and rich. I hope you can get them online soon! Muniche (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)