Talk:Bombus lapidarius

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): Allykunze. Peer reviewers: Orchidabar, Floyd Burney, Rasikareddy1019, Paanur.

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

Peer Review

I think this article is well written and certain sections are explained in great detail! I mainly focused on the organization as I was editing the article. I made Behavior, Interactions With Other Species, and Human Importance broader sections with other sections as subsections within these broader headings. There were few grammatical errors I noticed. Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasikareddy1019 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have very little to critique about this page. The sentences flow well, and I like the pictures. I have changed a few words to clarify a few sentences. I have also added a few hyperlinks. The Agriculture section repeated itself a few times, so I restructured it. I moved the Diet section out of the Interactions With Other Species section since it didn't fit the theme. Finally, I question if the mutualism section needs to be there. Perhaps it should be combined with he Agriculture section since they both involve pollination. Alternatively, the mutualism section could be expanded by talking about how each party benefits, or if this species of bee has a special relationship with the plants that it pollinates. Overall, I thought this article was well made.Floyd Burney (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The overview of this article is insubstantial for getting a summary of this bee’s characteristics. Similarly, the taxonomy and phylogeny section could use more information on the evolutionary history of this species and where it diverted from its last ancestor. The other sections, however, I have very little to critique. I added hyperlinks where necessary (e.g. taxonomy and phylogeny section), but generally the information is well explained and referenced. I added the conservation status to the right hand box because B. lapidarius is a nearly threatened species.Orchidabar (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this page, which I found to be well organized and very detailed. The behavior portion of this page was especially impressive given that there was an in depth description of all aspects of mating, including courtship and pheromones. Because I felt that this page was slightly more advanced, I tried to hyperlink certain words such as “pheromones” to give the reader an opportunity to further look into the various aspects of this species that you are mentioning. A minor detail I noticed was that you switch throughout the paper between spelling out numbers and using their numerical format, so in order to maintain consistency I would recommend using one or the other. I tried to edit the page to help enhance its flow but overall I think you have done a reall great job with it and I don’t see many flaws. Paanur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Very good job with this article. Firstly, I deleted a formatting error involving one of the images in the article. Secondly, I condensed your resources in some sections so that the same reference was not cited after two sentences in a row, as this is not necessary. Thirdly, I changed the capitalization of some of your section and subsection headings so that they would meet Wikipedia standards. Fourthly, I added a citation to the taxonomy section as it was without one before. Finally, I think that the section about stings is unnecessary unless it is expanded upon. Other than that, the behavior section is notable and the page is extremely well-done overall! Mebennett49 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Mebennett49

Peer Review

Overall, I thought this article was well balanced in terms of the facts you researched and how the information was presented. This article is extensively referenced and there are a lot of really cool facts! Some sections were lacking information and could definitely be expanded. Examples are under the behavior section, the brood and sex allocation sub sections are only a few sentences long. Under sex allocation, what difference does it make whether workers or the queen controls sex allocation and why?

I edited several aspects of the article, including grammar, spelling, organization, and structure.

I fixed some spelling and grammar, such as cleaning up the sentence structure in a couple of areas. An example is in the diet section, I changed the phrase from “but the workers are successful in this attempt fairly frequently” to “but the workers are frequently successful in this attempt.”

Structurally, I moved some of the information about the nest habitat from the ‘description and identification’ section to the ‘distribution and habitat’ section. I felt like this helped organize the information in the correct places. Further, I went through and hyperlinked some key terms to assist the viewer in attaining more information. Examples include ‘cuckoo’ in the pheromones subsection and Phacelia in the foraging patterns subsection. Kevin.george1 (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits for Behavioral Ecology Wiki Project

1)I think that the overview section is a bit short and should be expanded on, just a little. To do so, information on something, such as diet, can be included in a sentence just to have a more comprehensive overview of the species. 2) The Taxonomy and phylogeny section is a bit short too. Although it is straight to the point and very clear, I think it would be beneficial to include more information such as what species is the most closely related to the bee, or what is the characteristic of the family and genus that separates it from other families and genus, or what characteristic of the specific bee separates it from the other species of Bombus. 3) In the Description and Identification section, it is very detailed. The only thing I would suggest is adding a picture of males vs. females vs. queens as a visual, if it can be found. 4) In the Distribution and habitat section, it would be good to include a map of where the species is located. 5) The Colony cycle section should be expanded upon. This could be done by expanding upon when larvae are developing, when the queen lays eggs, when the workers develop (before or after the queen lays eggs), or perhaps expanding on the hierarchy that is discussed in the last sentence. 6) For the Brood section, I think that the title should be changed to “Thermoregulation” rather than “Brood.” The sentences are focused more on the heat that is developed due to contraction of thoracic flight muscles. The only mention of the brood is that this technique is used to help warm and incubate them. Thus, the purpose of it is the brood, but the information is more focused on thermoregulation. 7) The Sex Allocation section is a bit short. It might be good to include more details such as how the workers control sex allocation, how exactly that leads to haploid males and diploid females, or linking to other pages that may include these details. 8) For the Diet section, I believe that the information could be rearranged so that the second paragraph discussing flowers and food can be placed after the first sentence “Red-tailed bumblebees typically eat pollen and nectar.” Then a new paragraph can be started with “Interestingly, workers will sometimes attempt to eat the eggs…” This is because the information seems a little jumpy and rearrangement would help with organizing the information. Otherwise, the article was very easy to read and was very well written! Good job.

Kew8888 (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Student Review

Holy smokes! It is truly amazing what three short months of hard work can create. This article offers a large amount of interesting and relevant information in short and to-the-point paragraphs. The grammar is on point and the flow is easy to follow. It contains a plethora of sources, each cited properly in the article. In the “Description and identification” paragraph, I changed the phrase “and” to “coloration along with” to help clear up any uncertainty about what was being described. The main thing that I tried to do was increase the number of in-article links. I added several, including two in the “Courtship behavior” paragraph (links to labial glands and the Balkans). I also deleted a duplicate link to the “Psithyrus” page. Great work Allison! Cratermann (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Additions to the article

Fantastic article! I went ahead and created a range map to illustrate the distribution of the Bombus lapidarius bee. I also added a couple links within the article and I reviewed the text for spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Kulshrestha51 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hey, I enjoyed reading your article. good job! I only have a few suggestions. I think it might be a good idea for you to split some of the sections such as "foraging" and "agriculture" into multiple sections/subsections. I thought it was was too long. It might even be better if you split it into multiple paragraphs. I also thought the "conservation status" section can be improved to be less choppy. Otherwise, I thought the article was great! Matthewkim93 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

I thought this article had an amazing amount of information in it. It had a lot of sections you would want to see when learning about a bee and your hard work on flushing out all the information available into this article really shows. The slight problem with this, is that it is a bit hard to read at times. Maybe separating paragraphs in the larger sections so as to have a nicer and concise look even though there is a ton of information. Amazing job on this! Tefrancis (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Conservation Status phrase ?

Sorry, but I don't understand what "different species of bumblebee understand their surroundings according to different scales" means, or what it might have to do with its conservation status. Is it just me ? IceDragon64 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)