Talk:Liostenogaster vechti

A Project Vespidae class review

This page had a lot of great info, and I really liked that you added internal wikipedia links when appropriate. I would suggest adding a couple of external links as well if you have time. I fixed a couple of places where you had entire sentences in italics. One thing you might want to look at is the way you organized your sections. Though they make sense, they don't follow the class format at all. I would suggest maybe moving the nesting information up to the description category. Also I'd make a behavior section and then place reproduction and division of labor under it. Also predators should really go under interactions with other species, since predator/prey interactions are an interspecies interaction. I'd say pick and choose which of these suggestions sound the best to you, but I'd really suggest reformatting at least some of the largest categories, it will make the article more clear. Otherwise, a really great page with a ton of well developed info, great job! Atkarp (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Great article!

Overall, this was a very informative article. Nicely done! I have some minor concerns that I will share with you just because I assume you will be doing minor revisions in the near future. For instance, one of your links is dead - I don’t think the genus name in the taxabox is supposed to be red. Also, I think the species name is supposed to be L. vechti not just vechti. I like the picture and how it demonstrates what a nest looks like when it is under construction; however, if you could find a more up-close picture that would be great to add! As for changes, I linked L. flavolineata to its species page. I also linked clypeus so that users could find out what that anatomical term refers to. In the Habitat and distribution section, what type of flat, vertical or horizontal substrates does your species lay eggs on? In the Egg-laying section, what is a pap? These would be several areas in which you could elaborate on in future revisions. I changed “reproductive” in the Genetic relatedness section so that it was not italicized, and I made a word italicized in Predators and defense. I really like how thorough you were with the observable and also the tested mechanisms behind signaling in your species. If you decide to reorganize, you could add a section about camouflage with regards to how the nest is built. Rey_ks (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Suggestions

You have a good start to your article, but I think it can be improved.

• I added an external link to Stefano Turillazzi’s research page because he was cited heavily in the article.
  • You should consider adding further external links.
• I changed the heading of “Interactions with other species” because “Feeding,” “Signaling,” “Dominance,” and “Fights” are all interactions within the species.
  • I also added “Division of labor” to the “Behavior” section because it fell under the overall heading.
• In terms of the entire article, you should expand the overview section to meet Wikipedia’s guideline, as well as consider restructuring the overall article to be more coherent, especially the “Nests” section. Large parts of the information in that section belong more logically in the “Description and identification” section. In addition, the “Costs and benefits of group living” section is mainly about nests and should be kept under the same heading as the “Nest” material. Marecto (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

Great job on this article, it was very informative and well written. The article had a banner at the bottom that said the article was categorized so I added it to the insects category. Your overview was a bit short and could be more thorough. You could expand it by explaining why L. vechti is considered passive aggressive. You could also add more of a preview of other things discussed later in the article such as defense behavior. Overall you had a lot of good, detailed information. It would be helpful if you could add some pictures of the wasp itself. You also might want to add the IUCN conservation status to the taxobox. Your article might be enhanced by adding a section on human importance. You briefly touch on the species interaction with humans in the overview but don't discuss it again in the body of the article. Overall very nice job with this article. nef614 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

@Three is me: I am a regular Wikipedia editor and am considering reviewing this article for DYK. At the moment, the referencing is inadequate and I started reformatting the references but its your project, and it would be better if you did them. #7 and #8 are quite unsatisfactory, need the authors names to be listed properly and the volume and issue number of the journal included. It would also be helpful to provide online links for the research articles cited, and the "doi" number is a very good way of doing this. You could use the template
<ref>{{cite journal |author= |year= |title= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |pmid= |pmc= |url= }}</ref>. If you include the doi number you do not need the pmid, pmc or url. Apart from these suggestions, it is a very nice article. If you need any help, please ask. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination response

Thank you so much for considering my article!!! I have tried to fix the references you requested. I do not see dois for the two book chapter sources, but I did add them to references 7 and 8 along with the Volume and Issue numbers. I hope the changes are satisfactory! If not, please let me know. Three is me (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The references are much better, books do not usually have dois. I have now approved the article for DYK, but when it will appear on the front page of Wikipedia is uncertain because there is a backlog of nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)