User talk:Mary.p2019/sandbox

3/12/19 Peer Review- Juhi
Wikipedia has a citation tool to make your references links, and then it automatically updates your reference list in the order utilized. In the geographic distribution section- consider a graphic of a map or something to illustrate the diversity of geographic distribution. In the description and identification section- consider an image or drawing of the species to go with the description given. Consider moving the floral associations section further down. While this level of detail is interesting, I think in terms of priority sociality is higher. Maybe also state the significance of this information. Juhis2309 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review of Augochloropsis Outline - Milan
Alongside the description you provided for the typical appearance of Augochloropsis bees, you could also add in images of the various kinds Augochloropsis bees found in nature which will help viewers visualize them. You could also add in a diagram that dissects the key features of the Augochloropsis genus. You could add the etymology of the genus and what the common name of these bees are. You could include more information on the life cycle of the bees as well as the ideal conditions in which they operate, such as temperature. Having data on how much pollen they collect could also be helpful in understanding their contribution to the ecosystem. It could also be interesting to look at parasitic interactions if there is research available on this.

Overall, the content of your article seems really thorough and well-researched. Besides the few suggestions I've made above, I think you've covered everything important for this bee genus and have done a great job at drafting an outline for the Wikipedia page. Everything is organized neatly into their respective categories and all the information you've included is relevant and necessary. You included in-text citations as well as a references section at the end which is a key component. The tone of your article is straightforward and neutral. There is no bias apparent in your writing and it is very factual. Again, great job with this!

Olivia's peer review
I like the level of detail provided. The sections are clear and very descriptive. It is hard for me to find criticism as your draft looks like a complete wikipedia article. One pointer I have is that some of the descriptions may be hard for a regular person (unfamiliar with bees) to understand, for example, the second paragraph in the "Description and Identification" section. My suggestion is to add links to other wikipedia pages that explain some of the body structures. Instead of saying "corbicula" I would say "pollen basket" and link the wikipedia page for pollen baskets. Some other terms I suggest linking are "eusocial," "semisocial," "division of labor" and "behavioral plasticity." I cannot think of anything else to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omatise12 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Saleha's Evaluation
Content: The content of the article is very thorough and does not require many additions. While reading through the article no further questions pop up that are not already answered within the article. I think that one change you could make would be to put the description and identification section first, and switch the geographic distribution section to the second section. I think the description section is more important and it serves as a better intro to the topic which is why it should go first within your article. The article breaks up the categories very well. Each category has a good chunk of information underneath it. I think the main change that I would suggest would to be to add pictures. Specifically if you are able to find a picture of the nesting burrows to add to the nesting behavior section I think that would be very helpful because a description is kind of hard to interpret. Some general pictures of the bee itself would also be a nice addition. I did not notice any errors with grammar, spelling or sentence structure.

Tone: The tone of the article is very neutral, which is exactly what wikipedia is looking for. There are no phrases that convey a biased tone in any way.

Salehaminhas (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Saleha

Val's Review!
This draft is very complete and informational. The only thing that maybe a nice touch to add would be like a small "fun fact" section if you would like to include more studies on specific things about the Augochloropsis genus. I also think adding some picture to go along with the text when describing how to identify the genus would be really helpful for people who may not know a lot about bees. I really like how clear and concise each section is as well. It looks like this draft is pretty complete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valxoxo48 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)