Talk:Exoneura robusta
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exoneura robusta article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Exoneura robusta appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 October 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
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): Mandeljulia. Peer reviewers: Khan.nadia, Claire.packer.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback
editYour article was very well written and informative. I made a few grammar and sentence structure edits to your article, but it was overall well done. My biggest suggestion is that you should not and don't need to use quotes. Everything that you have in quotes could be said in your own words and I think that it comes off the wrong way in your article. I also had a question about your information on the reproductive capability of the bees. Under Reproductive Skew, you said that worker females have underdeveloped ovaries, but earlier in the article you said that all of the bees are reproductively capable. I would just fact check that to make sure that it's consistent. Great job overall. I hope that my suggestions are helpful. Claire.packer (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments/editions
editI made a few minor edits, mostly fixing grammatical mistakes. I also edited the writing slightly to help make it flow better. I thought that the article could benefit from creating subsections, so I turned a few sections into subsections as well. I also rearranged a few subsections so that the order made more sense and flowed better. Overall, this article looks great! Well written and covers a wide range of topics. Allykunze (talk)
Peer Review
editThis is a very well written article that has a lot of information and seems well-researched. I only made a few minor grammar corrections as everything else seemed great! I do think the "Mating Behavior" section could use a few more citations. Also, I think a communication section in the behavior category would be beneficial to the article as a whole. I found the behavioral plasticity of the species very interesting! Overall, the layout and organization of the entry all flowed really well. Great job! Khan.nadia (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Final Edits
editThis article is well organized with detailed information on behavior, though I made a few changes to further improve it. The “Behavior” section had nothing under it, so I made the subsequent sections sub-headings of behavior since they all fell into that general category anyways. Mating behaviors could probably be divided further as well. I also added family and order information in the taxonomy section. I also added links for Hymenoptera, Apidae, and dispersal. Overall this article was well written, so I did not have many grammatical changes to make. Generally, I would suggest adding more references and eliminating some of the longer direct quotes to summarize the information on your own. The article could also benefit from more information included on diet and foraging behavior and more images if available.