Talk:Neoclytus caprea

Insects Low‑importance

	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.

Beetles Low‑importance

	Insects portal Neoclytus caprea is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feedback for Wikipedia assignment

I'm a student at WashU, and as part of the Behavioral Ecology 2024 Wiki Education Assignment, I wanted to give you some feedback on the Wikipedia page. I've sent in a Google document with edits regarding this article to the Wiki assignment, but overall, my suggestions centered around clarifying some information that you have and adding some more information that you previously mention in your long introduction to other parts of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikakipnisuser (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

Hello, I'm the author of the most recent and substantial contributions to this wikipedia article. I added the etymology, distribution, physiology, description, diet, and life history sections. I also wrote the majority of the introduction section. Writing about this beetle was particularly challenging this time around due to the lack of information and research around it. I tried added all the information I could with the limited research on it without generalizing the information to genus traits. That being said, to reach my word count goal I fluffed up the introduction section. If this wasn't an assignment then I would've done things differently to improve the quality of the article. MidnightBarber (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

You did a good job writing the article even though you did not have many sources to work with. Make sure you add in the class banner so other editors know that this is part of WikiEdu. I get that you needed to fluff up the intro because there wasn’t much literature, but it was still too long and repetitive. I went ahead and fixed some grammatical mistakes and corrected not-neutral tone. Make sure you capitalize countries and directions when they refer to geographical regions and italicize the name of the beetle whenever you refer to it. I’m not sure if it’s appropriate to refer to the beetle as “they” instead of “it” so that’s worth looking into. Oroblancos (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

You have a really good information, to make this page more understandable. I added new sections covering Taxonomic Classification, Microbiome, Digestion, Thermosensation, Hearing, Gustation, Olfaction, Vision, and Flight, under a Physiology section incorporating information from various reliable sources cited accordingly. These additions aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the beetle's taxonomy, physiological characteristics, and sensory capabilities. I ensured to maintain neutrality and accuracy while contributing to the page. Abeer.hreedeen (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review - deletions

All my changes were deletions in the overview section. I deleted information about the beetle body size and where the beetle may be found, as the information is also in the description and distribution sections. I also deleted a paragraph that was repeated almost exactly in the life history section, and another two paragraphs about mimicry and olfactory information that was repeated in the defensive appearance and olfactory cues section. The overview section was very long and redundant with the rest of the page, however, the information in the article as a whole was well written and informative. I also suggest adding some more citations, as it is unclear which source some of the information is from. Alexiathia (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]