Talk:Bombus hyperboreus

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): Megxb. Peer reviewers: Callisons, Roohi.byakod, AddyShak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hey, I am working on Bombus hyperboreus research for a class so I would appreciate it if my content was not removed. Thank you. Megxb (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

I really liked your article! The sentences flowed well so that the reader could focus on the information, and I found a lot of the information really interesting.

I did make some changes as far as word choices that will help clarify your points. Also, I don't know if there are certain instances in which you use bumblebee versus bumble bee, but they seemed to be used interchangeably in your article, so I would suggest consistency on that. Also, if you give a hyperlink for a definition, you probably don't need to provide the definition in your article as it will waste space and take away from your main points (this also could have been the result of someone adding a hyperlink to your article after you'd already added the definition). I also corrected a few sentences that were in the wrong tense.

Flynnt2013 (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello!

Your article is very well written and concise. Besides a few cases of awkward wording and improper comma usage, I believe your article excelled grammatically. I was unable to find a picture to add to your page myself, but I would highly recommend that one be put in. I added some hyperlinks, though you got most of the important ones already. One suggestion I'd like to make is to mention a researcher's full name (and publication year if possible) when referencing their studies. Then you can use their last name to refer to their research, once you've given them credit for their work. That way your facts also seem a bit more credible. Another suggestion is that you elaborate a bit on your statements. For example, if “the production of queens and their behavior depends on the habitat”, then I would include why or how it depends on the habitat before jumping to the next piece of information. All in all your article is great!

Roohi.byakod (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Recommendations

Just a few recommendations: 1. For the Intro paragraph, who is Quenzel and Schonherr? Maybe adding a first name or one word description could be helpul. 2. In “Identification” it says the hair minimizes insulation loss. Wouldn’t the hair act as an insulator, not minimize its loss? I could be wrong, maybe I’m misunderstanding. 3. Very minor grammar and comma issues, so just look out for that.

Overall, thought it was very well-written, easy to understand, and concise. I also liked that you added a lot of hyperlinks. Although, I guess that could've been another peer editor. But if it was you, good job!

Great job! -Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callisons (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Nice job. Photos would be nice, but I couldn't find any either!

I did minor rephrasing to make a few sentences flow better a little better. For example, I changed reworded the sentence below:

original

The reason why B. hyperboreus evolved traits of social parasitism is because it inhabits harsh cold environments and must produce small colonies during short periods when conditions are favorable.

edited

B. hyperboreus evolved traits of social parasitism because it inhabits harsh cold environments and must produce small colonies during short periods when conditions are favorable.

I also made some edits to the queen behavior section. The comparison of the queen's behavior in Scandinavia vs Canada wasn't very clear to me, so I checked the original source. I then rephrased the paragraph in a way that aligned better with the original paper and which made more sense to me:

original

The production of queens and their behavior depends on the habitat of the species, B. hyperboreus. Alpine and arctic habitats have short growing seasons (2–3 months), which pushes the species to produce more sexual individuals (queens and males) instead of workers. Thus, queens have been found in Scandinavia to collect nectar and pollen while those in artic Canada have not been found to do so.

edited

Depending on its habitat, B. hyperboreus queens will exhibit different behavior and will produce different types of offspring. Alpine and arctic habitats have short growing seasons (2–3 months), which pushes the species to produce more sexual individuals (queens and males) instead of workers. Additionally, queens found in Scandinavia have been found to actively collect nectar and pollen while those in found in artic Canada have not been found to do so.

Well done.

-RNwumeh RNwumeh (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

I changed the phrasing of the first sentence of the overview a bit to make it flow better. In the next sentence I replaced “to propagate its species” with “in order to reproduce” because your initial phrasing could be misconstrued as a good of the species argument. Under colony cycle I replaced “a colony of a different species” with “host species” in order to make it more concise. I’m a little bit confused about the whole nesting description section; if this species is a parasite, why do they build their own nest at all? At what point in the colony cycle do they build a nest? I think this could use some clarifying. I would recommend moving the diet section to follow the description section, rather than coming after the behavior section. Otherwise, your writing style is quite good and well suited for Wikipedia articles. The only other suggestion I would make is trying to find some more literature to flesh out this article, as it feels a bit sparse. Mandeljulia (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

I loved reading your article! It was very well-written, well-organized, and informative. I would suggest adding a picture to the article, but I understand that there isn´t one to be found on wikimedia.org. Hopefully, one will come up soon in the future so that you or another editor can add it to enhance the article. I fixed some spacing errors between sentences and words, and found a couple comma mishaps, but other than that, there were no major errors to be found. Thanks for your work!AddyShak (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi!

Your article is very well-written! I would suggest adding pictures, especially above the summary box near the beginning of the article (as well as throughout the article, of course). Under "Taxonomy and phylogeny", you mention the names of a couple of scientists or researchers. I think it would be appropriate to mention their full names first when introducing their studies, and then continue to refer to them by their last names. Under "Diet", you mention "medium to deep flowers". Maybe I just personally don't understand it, but could you expand on what that means?

Overall you did a great job with this article!

Roohi.byakod (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional Comments

This is a very well written article. I think that the introduction is good, but there could be even more added to make it more intriguing and introduce the article well. I reworded it a bit to do so, but I think adding more information would help as well. I also think that the section about differences in behavior based on habitat could be expanded and those differences highlighted, perhaps by separating them into different sections. Overall, this is a well done article!Danakes6 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)