Talk:Bombus ignitus: Difference between revisions

Insects Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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): PhonoxClassic (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Missmanasa, Vsalazar258, Jkottapalli.

Just created a page, will be adding much more in the following hours, do not delete.

For this entry, the main corrections I made were concerning inclusion of inter-Wiki links as well as basic grammar and sentence structure. I included links for around 10 terms which could benefit from further explanation such as “eusocial,” “thorax,” and “diploid.” I also added inter-Wiki links for all of the countries mentioned, as I figured this would make it easier for readers to access further information about these specific environments. Moreover, I corrected some basic errors such as the lack of italicization for many of the genus and species names mentioned in the paragraph such as the terms “Apinae,” “Bombus,” and “Apidae” mentioned several times in the taxonomy section. My only suggestion would be to consider improving the section about mating behavior as this is currently only two sentences in length and could be greatly elaborated to add greater detail to the article. Otherwise, I thought the article was very well written and thorough! Missmanasa (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a well-written article. Although it is an intriguing beginning, I do think the statement “some surviving queens are essentially living corpses” should be explained in some way. I made some significant changes to the genetic relatedness section in order to make it more concise. In the worker-queen conflict section, you should clarify across what time period that survival rate of founding queens refers to (i.e. survival rate from beginning to end of season?). Besides these concerns, I made general edits throughout the article to smooth out awkward phrasing as well as small grammatical corrections. I would also love to see some more information in the behavior section if possible, but I understand that sometimes the amount of information available about a particular species can be limited.