Talk:Polybia rejecta

Class comments and suggestions for improvement

The article is off to a great start, but I think you can add more details and clean it up to make it even better. Here are my suggestions:
The overview needs to have references. At the moment, none of the information is linked to sources.
The overview should be more comprehensive with links to other pages and details about the species diet and general behavior. Later in the article, you address how aggressive this wasp is. Add that in at the top as well, and a little cool plug about their stings.
The additional names in Taxonomy and Phylogeny should be added to the classification box, underneath the binomial name, titled Synonyms. I rearranged and edited sentences and grammar in Distribution, Queen vs. Worker, Egg predation, Birds. Feel free to change any of my edits, they are just suggestions for coherency and sentence structure.
The description and habitat category is very stark and doesn’t read well. I think further information about the wasp’s “association” with ants and birds should be expanded on. I know you have a lot of information about that later in the article, but add a few cool facts that let the reader know what you mean!
In addition, the nest location should be elaborated on with either a couple of examples or even a picture (if you can find one). This will make the paragraph read more easily, and it will connect to the envelope description much better.
In colony cycle, I think it would be very helpful to explain how the colony cycle “varies greatly.” Further examples and accounts of the differences between each phase of the cycle is needed.
In Egg Predation, this sentence "Embryos that are likely to be attacked hatch up to a third of the time of embryos that are not likely to be attacked" is confusing and doesn't make sense to me. Please revise it.

I also suggest brushing up on your sentence structure and comma usage. There were many run-ons and missing commas. This is an essential skill! For example, this sentence in egg predation had no commas. All the commas were added by me: "When the wasp attacks the egg, they grasp the individual egg with their mouth and simply pull. After they pull out the egg, the wasp will then work on getting the embryo out of the egg. If the embryo is more developed and able to struggle, the wasp will drag the embryo around the leaf and bite it." Always put a comma before however, that was the biggest issue. Otherwise, I enjoyed learning about your wasp. It's an interesting species! Chiararosenbaum (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

I went through the article and added more hyperlinks,I thought there were many words that should be hyperlinked such as the genus Polybia and macrophytes. Many people reading this article probably do not have a general background about wasp species and do not know much about the genus. Words such as marcrophytes are also not common knowledge, so the addition of hyperlinks is helpful in understanding the content of the article. Overall, this article is very thorough and is broad in the coverage of the species. Also, It would be helpful to say Agalychnis callidryas instead of A. callidryas. This article would greatly benefit from the addition of pictures. Overall, this article is very thorough and is broad in the coverage of the species. Amgoldberg15 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

First of all, I thought there was a lot of very interesting information about the species. But there also seemed to be many missing information that is crucial in understanding some of the concepts.

Overview

The overview seems overly concise that it doesn't provide that many information in one sight, and lacks some basic information of the species. If you could add a couple more sentence, describing the general morphology of the wasp, habitat, or some unique fact about the species, I think that could improve the introduction by far. Also, instead of just saying "size can determine the caste system", it would be helpful to briefly explain "how" the size matters.

Distribution

The information started off really well here, but it seems to be lacking some elaboration. For instance, it is very interesting that the species has been found in the vicinity of the particular frog. But why? How are the two species related and why is this information important/relevant in learning about Polybia rejecta?

Right hand box

Just a minor edit, I made a "Synonym" section under the Binomial name since there were many other names the species was recognized by.

Overall, I think the article had many unique information, but at the same time could add some more to further the understanding. Dwjoanne (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Recommendations

First off, I think you wrote a well-researched and comprehensive article. You did a great job translating information from scientific articles to something that anyone reading this article would understand. A recommendation would be to cite the information in your introduction paragraph. I think it is well written, but it would be helpful if you added the references in which you got the information. I also fixed one of your broken links for “social wasps” under Colony Cycle. Originally it led to a page stating that your link wasn’t a valid one. I also took out the link to “Azteca chartifex” as this page doesn’t exist except in the Swedish version of Wikipedia. In addition, I added a few more links throughout your article. This will hopefully increase traffic to your page and allow people to have easy access to other pages with concepts related to your species. You could maybe expand upon the section of Colony Cycle a bit more and go into detail about the specific parts of the cycle. A distribution map might also give a good visual that would complement your section on Distribution. Overall, I think the sections you have are diverse and well written. You’ve done a great job! Daphnedeng (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

Overall, this is a really great article and is very well written. The information and sections covered are very extensive and informative. I would suggest reformatting the page though. There are numerous sections that are headings that would probably fit better under one main heading of Interactions with other species (or something similar). These sections include Nesting Near Azteca chartifex, Egg predation of red eyed tree frogs, and Birds and polybia rejecta. Also, including pictures would make the page a lot more visually appealing. Other than the organizational issue, this page is great. Good work! Tgalosher (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Size?

No size of queen, workers or males mentioned. --Mideal (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)