User talk:Mel.mcguire/Hetaerina

Peer review
Global comment

Overall, the article provides a good amount of information about the Hetaerina genus and their reproductive behavior. The writer did a great job of presenting the information in a clear and organized manner, with distinct sections that break down different aspects of the genus and their lifecycle.

One of the strengths of the article is the use of scientific terminology and citations to support the information presented. This helps to add credibility to the article and shows that the writer has done their research on the topic. Additionally, the article provides a good amount of detail about the different aspects of the genus, which allows readers to gain a better understanding of these organisms.

An area for improvement could be the inclusion of more information about the ecological role of the Hetaerina genus and their importance in their respective habitats. This would help to contextualize the information presented and provide a broader understanding of these organisms beyond their reproductive behavior.

Local comment

There are a few areas for improvement:

1.Sentence structure and wording: Some sentences could be rephrased to improve readability and clarity. For example, in the first paragraph, it could be clearer to state that "Heterinae species primarily inhabit streams and rivers in the tropical regions of South America, where they show the highest levels of diversity" instead of separating the sentence into two parts.

On the positive side, the article does well in providing specific details about the Hetaerina genus and their reproductive behavior. The author uses scientific terminology appropriately and includes relevant information about the genus's morphology and lifecycle. Additionally, the inclusion of information about recent phylogenetic analyses adds depth and relevance to the article. Aseb101 (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Global comment: The formatting of the section titles shouldn't include colons or hypens. e.g. instead of "Reproduction-" it would simply be "Reproduction". Similar, the bolded text at the start of paragraphs should be subsection titles. Whenever possible, links to other Wikipedia articles on scientific terms should be included, along with a few words of definition for the concept (such as for sympatry). This will allow readers unfamiliar with the terminology to understand it easily and give them an easy route to find out more. The article is very detailed and thoroughly cited, and shows a good understanding of the traits and mating habits of this genus. Local comment: The paragraph temporarily labeled "extra stuff" could be a subsection titled "Evolutionary history" or "Relationships with other Heterininae" EileenPlants (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Good work on this! Your overall organization and structure is really solid and the article flows really well. Something I think you could add that would allow the reader to better understand the article right away, is stating in the first sentence "roughly 40 'damselfly' species" so we know exactly what kind of animal we're reading about from the beginning. Another area I think could be improved is in the reproductive behavior and mating tactics section. In the "copulation takes place in three stages" area is a bit confusing. First, is sperm transfer separate from copulation? Those two are usually equated together so that bit wasn't clear, and also in the first point you say "followed by copulation", but the header of the list states that copulation has three stages. To improve this maybe just change "copulation" in the title to "mating ritual" or something similar?

For local comments, I think your sentence structure and flow is really nice! It was very easy to follow and you added references in all the necessary places. One small spot I think you could improve is in the first sentence of the sentence paragraph. Instead of "development stages" I think it might sound better as "developmental stages". Another small spot that could be improved is in the wing pigmentation section - instead of the word "genii" in the first sentence I think you might have meant "genera", which is the plural form of the word genus. Overall, really great work on this, good job!Humblebear1 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Responses
G1. An area for improvement could be the inclusion of more information about the ecological role of the Hetaerina genus and their importance in their respective habitats. This would help to contextualize the information presented and provide a broader understanding of these organisms beyond their reproductive behavior.

-->	As damselflies, Rubyspots are generally weak fliers (standring), and their use of both water and terrestrial habitats within their lifecycle make them an important ecological indicator (cordoba-aguilar3)

-->	''Rubyspots, like all Odonates, are visual predators that prefer sunny environments for prey capture as well as social signaling. (henry)''

L1. Sentence structure and wording: Some sentences could be rephrased to improve readability and clarity. -	 For example, in the first paragraph, it could be clearer to state that "Heterinae species primarily inhabit streams and rivers in the tropical regions of South America, where they show the highest levels of diversity" instead of separating the sentence into two parts

-	While I appreciate the comment for the article as a whole, I found that the original wording of this sentence, “Hetaerinae species primarily inhabit streams and rivers, showing highest levels of diversity in the tropical regions of South America” is not structurally different enough from the 2-part sentence suggested to merit changing it.

-''	I did apply this suggestion to other areas of the article: In terms of condition, it follows that these males are generally between the averages for territorial males and nonterritorial males, less than the former but greater than the latter. --> These males are generally between the averages for territorial male condition and nonterritorial male condition, less than the former but greater than the latter.'' -

G2. The formatting of the section titles shouldn't include colons or hypens. e.g. instead of "Reproduction-" it would simply be "Reproduction". Similar, the bolded text at the start of paragraphs should be subsection titles. -	''As this was a first draft, I focused on the content primarily with the intent to include more proper formatting as the article got closer to publication. For this second draft, I have included the intended formatting''

G4. Whenever possible, links to other Wikipedia articles on scientific terms should be included, along with a few words of definition for the concept (such as for sympatry).

-''	I very much appreciated this comment as it was not something I had thought to include, and I agree that I think the links will contribute to a fuller comprehension of the article’s contents. I have added links throughout the article as denoted in blue.''

L2. The paragraph temporarily labeled "extra stuff" could be a subsection titled "Evolutionary history" or "Relationships with other Heterininae"

-	These are great topic suggestions; if I can include them in the article on their own without them seeming out of place, I will likely use the latter title.

-''Alternatively,

"Phylogeny and Habitat: The Hetaerina genus alone encompasses roughly 40 species in a variety of habitats throughout the Americas. Recent phylogenetic analyses for the Heterininae subfamily suggest that the genii Mneserate and Ormenophlebia are actually nestled within their sister genus, Hetaerina,[1] which would account for the species confusion of early Mnesarete and Hetaerina studies.[2] Hetaerinae species primarily inhabit…"'' Mel.mcguire (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Tyler Review
Global: I think there were several things you did well. Firstly, I think you used a good amount of citations in your article. Secondly, I think you provided a good amount of links to other articles which helps people to do further research. Thirdly, I think you added a lot of good information in many different topics. I think there were some things that you could have done better. Firstly, I think you could have provided some pictures of the animals or of their developmental stages to allow the reader to better understand the material. Secondly, I think you could have used the common name instead of the scientific name sometimes to make it easier to understand.

Locally: I think there were several things you did good. I think the wing pigmentation section had very good writing and a good amount of details. Secondly, I think the Phylogeny and Habitat section had good writing as well. There were several sections I think could be written better. In the area where it says "Copulation generally takes place in three stages" you have four stages listed. It might be good to make it three stages or say it takes place in four stages. Secondly, in "Morphology and General Lifestyle" you did not capitalize Rubyspot Damselflies the first time you mention them. It might be a good idea to capitalize that. Overall, I think you are doing very good. Ttbioclass (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)