Talk:Bombus ignitus

	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).

Untitled

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

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): PhonoxClassic. Peer reviewers: Mandeljulia, Floyd Burney, Missmanasa, Jkottapalli.

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

Review/Suggestions

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]

Feedback

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandeljulia (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More notes

Overall, the page is well written and covers a variety of topics. The “some surviving queens are essentially living corpses” sentence needs to be explained. I think you mean that the queens take such a beating while defending their own eggs and attacking worker eggs that they are slowly dying; however, the sentence is just confusing, and “living corpses” is an oxymoron. I added hyperlinks to the distribution and medical areas. Also, I fixed your taxbox placement. It was halfway down the page. Usually, it is right beside the introduction. Finally, I reworded the first sentence of the Genetic Relatedness section as it was a run-on. On a minor note, the section titles aren’t supposed to be capitalized after the first word (Kin selection not Kin Selection). It would be nice to know if the bee is threatened at all, and the Behavior sections look like they could be fleshed out more. Floyd Burney (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Comments

This is a great article so far. The picture in the right-hand box is very cool, however the page could use another picture or two to make it more visually appealing. A distribution map would also be useful. I made a few changes with phrasing and word choice throughout the article to make the information clearer. I also corrected any grammatical errors I came across, but I would suggest reading through the article one more time and make sure there is always tense agreement. Lastly I moved the mating behavior subsection before the reproductive suppression subsection because I think general information about mating should be introduced first.

Future editing should focus on lengthening the introduction section to encompass the entire article, adding habitat information to the distribution and habitat section (right now it is entirely distribution), and add more clarifying information to the division of labor section. Good work on the article so far however, I especially enjoyed the kin selection and description sections. HBrodke (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Great article overall! I don’t think that you need to include the taxonomic information that you do in your Taxonomy section because it is the same information that is contained in your right hand box. Under your description section, I linked the word “terga” because it is not common knowledge. I linked the queen bee and worker bee paged to your page. If possible I would add a region map to your page to better show the location of your species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire.packer (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]