Talk:Bombus bohemicus

	Insects portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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): Melliott132. Peer reviewers: Mandeljulia, Shelly May, Wdsieling, Missmanasa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Critique

Overall, the article was extremely informative and well written. Especially good job with the “colony initiation” and “taxonomy” sections, both are concise and filled with meaningful, interesting information. One thing that you can do is increase the number of citations. The proper convention on wikipedia seems to be adding a citation after every new fact is presented. One place where a citation is extremely necessary is the last paragraph in the “colony initiation” section. There, the last paragraph ends without any citation. As a result, I have no idea where the information in the last 4 sentences came from. The addition of more citations will reduce the amount of ambiguity that is currently present (big blocks of text with sparse citations). You might also want to think about adding a bit more to the division of lab section; I think it would be really interesting to expand upon the “defensive tasks” that you talk about here (what are they? how are they performed? etc.). I went ahead and added a couple of hyperlinks to words such as “dodecyl acetate” and more. Overall great article-- let me know if you have any questions! Jkottapalli (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Really good work on this article! It is well written, well researched, and overall very interesting. Generally, it was just in need of serious proofreading, which I provided. I made quite a few minor edits such as correcting typos and grammar. There are just a couple of things that need specific attention. First, when you say “beyond the Arctic Circle” in the distribution section, do you mean south or north of the Arctic circle? You accidentally included the first section of the distribution habitat twice, so I deleted it the second time you wrote it. I made some fairly large changes in phrasing in the second half of the distribution section in order to make things more concise. Make sure to look over this and see if you approve of how I rewrote things. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Mandeljulia (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions/Corrections

The main corrections I made were concerning inclusion of inter-Wiki links as well as basic grammar and sentence structure. In the first sentence, I included an inter-Wiki link for “Cuckoo bumblebee”, and deleted the second occurrence, as it seemed redundant that the article included the term twice, one with a link and one without. I also included links for the genus “Bombus,” “phylogenetic,” “hydrocarbons,” and around 10 other terms which could benefit from further explanation. Moreover, I corrected some basic comma splice errors in the description section. For instance, I divided up the last sentence of the first paragraph as well as the sentence following it by including a semicolon. I also edited some of the wordiness of the first sentence of the third paragraph on colony initiation as there was some lack of fluidity between subject and verb agreement. In addition, I suggest perhaps delving deeper into issues which require more information, such as the sections about division of labor, life history, or mating behavior. For instance, for the section on life history, information about the number of days the organism is alive or the relative time spend in each period may help to further understand the timeline of the insect’s life. In addition, including how males and females choose each other in the mating section may help to understand how the ratios described actually develop. Other than that, I thought the entry was very well written and thorough! :) Missmanasa (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

This is a really well researched and well written article on B. bohemicus. I had no idea there were parasitic Bombus bees, which is definitely something cool that made me want to read more after the introduction. There weren't many corrections to make, I reworded a sentence in the Description section, simply removing the word "tail" as it was written twice. I took the liberty to list and link your species to this page on the sugenus page, Psithyrus. Your sections are all very thorough, and it seems you really listened to the feedback that previous classmates gave when you first wrote this article. One point I need to note is that there is a footnote missing for information in the last section on human interaction. Other than that, great job with this article. Wdsieling (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Revisions

Wow, what an article! Although nearly perfect, I was able to make a few slight changes. I began by removing unnecessary links to pages that do not exist, including one to “Dufour’s glands” in the paragraph titled “Description.” I then went and fixed the links of various bee species wherein articles exist but were not linked to properly. These included the species Bombus ashtoni in the “Taxonomy and phylogeny” section and Bombus cryptarum in the “Interaction with other species” section. I also removed several duplicate links, including one in the “Interaction to other species” paragraph to B. terrestris and also one to B. lucorum in the same paragraph. I also changed a few of the heading formatting to keep it consistent throughout the article and with the rest of Wikipedia. Aside from that, the article was in great shape. The article is extensively linked, though not in an excessive manner. It covered a large variety of material and flowed smoothly from sentence to sentence and from paragraph to paragraph. The information was presented in a way that made it interesting and engaging for the reader. Whoever wrote this article, I could see myself becoming friends with him! Cratermann (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]