Talk:Melipona scutellaris

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Shelly May. Peer reviewers: Melliott132, Tefrancis, Mpmaz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

The information included so far is a good start for the article, as you have some information about most aspects of the bee's life cycle and behavior. I made some small edits for clarity that included moving sentences within the introductory paragraph to put the location before the discussion of the common name so the reader has better context. I think the main focus for further information should be in describing colony initiation and the methods of colony preservation/renewal from year to year, as well as greater detail about the parasitic behavior that this species shows. Also, I think that the role differentiation and kinship sections would both benefit from a discussion of haplodiploidy and how that may shape interactions especially between workers and queens. This may also add useful information to discussion of virgin queens. Melliott132 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article is good in that it has a nice amount of all around information. For clarity's sake, there should be more explanation on the colony cycle as the relevancy of cell size of the different queens is unclear. This is also true for the section of Caste Determination. It would give the article more substance if these were explained further. I edited a few small mistakes but otherwise the wording was good. This article could also benefit from a section possibly on sexual selection/mate choice and any other interactions this bee has, particularly with other animals. Also at a later date, the article would need hyperlinks to the more difficult terminology so that people can understand what the vocabulary means. Examples are words like atrophied and geopropolis. Overall I think the article contains a lot of good basic information that anyone wanting to get a quick understanding of the bee would appreciate the way this is laid out and explained. Tefrancis (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

I felt as though all the information presented was interesting and relevant, but I think it could use some more depth and more explanations. For instance, the Colony Cycle section may benefit from more information about how new colonies are started as well as a more in-depth explanation of virgin queens and exactly how their roles differ from regular queens. Also, you could explain what a "jostling run" is in more detail in the Communication section. As expressed in an earlier peer review comment, I think that the connection between haplodiploidy and role differentiation isn't super clear, so it might be beneficial to make a more concrete link between those two concepts. I think the Kinship section could also be described more detail, especially with respect to the implications of the first paragraph on kin recognition and conflict between workers and the queen, as well as the ways in which the guards are thought to sense smells. (Mpmaz (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

Final Edits

This article has a strong behavioral section and good number of pictures, but I made a few minor changes to improve it. I fixed the subfamily name to be Apinae instead of Apidae. In the taxonomy section I described the order Hymenoptera. I also added links for Potiguara, Kiriri, Xucuru, Pataxo, resins, deforestation, honeybees, forager, atrophied, allele, and antimicrobial. I would also suggest adding more information on mating and foraging behaviors if possible.

Mkfreiler (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is very well written, and I was unable to find many grammatical or flow errors, which is key to having a strong Wikipedia article. I went through and added more images in an effort to make the article more visually engaging. Additionally, I added more links to certain vocabulary through the page like eusocial and haplodiploid in order to make it easier for the reader to understand the terminology. I think more information on the conservation status of the species in addition to further detail regarding kin selection and queen-worker status could help to enhance the article overall. Very well done! Paanur (talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Review from a friend

This article was extensive and well-written, great job! Each section was around 200-600 words each, which is a good length to maximize reader attention while still being complete with the information. The introduction is also a good length and definitely has some interesting material that will entice the reader to continue on. The various images also help to visualize the species and its nest structure. One way to improve the article is to hyperlink some terms and topics that may be unfamiliar to readers. Also, between paragraphs its best to use the ‘new line’ feature in Wikipedia, so I went thorough and fixed the formatting in a few instances, such as the Distribution and habitat section. Kevin.george1 (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Final Review

Great job with this article, I found it well written and really couldn't find any grammatical errors to edit myself. Pictures were utilized appropriately to accompany the information in your article, which I greatly appreciated. The only change I made was I added the conservation status to the Taxonomy box, as you say in the article the species is endangered so I reflected this information there. This article is very thorough and gives a good broad coverage of this species, and I think in many places it has reach some of the good article criteria that has been discussed in reviews above. Wdsieling (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Super great job on this article! I thought the information flowed really well and did not find any grammar errors that needed to be changed. The content is pretty strong , however I think the article could further benefit from a foraging behavior section. I found it really interesting that the geopropolis can target human cancer cells. You have included several images in the articles which is nice to see. I think the addition of more hyperlinks for more scientific words would help the article more. Overall, it is a very informative and well written piece. Bravo! Khan.nadia (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article was very thoroughly flushed out. I felt that this was a lot of good information and reading this article gave me the confidence to say I knew some information about this bee. I enjoyed your introductory section as well. Two sections to add in the future might be foraging and mating behavior. Foraging would been especially interesting since we can figure out its niche in South America a little more. Overall I thought this was a very clean article. Great Job!Tefrancis (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)