Talk:Protopolybia exigua

	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).

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Note from creator

What I have done is create a wikipedia page for P. exigua so the public can gain a basic understanding of the species. It is by no means completely thorough and all inclusive, but this article provides a strong foundation about the wasp.

- Chiara Rosenbaum

A few edits

I thought this article was very well written, with lots of good information and many internal links to other Wikipedia pages. I took off the critique on your article that said it was an orphan, because your article has many links to other articles. I was able to make a few writing edits, such as fixing a few spelling and grammar errors, and fixing your word choice and splitting up run-on sentences in some areas. Additionally, I added the year that Protopolybia exigua was classified by de Saussure (1906), because you did not have that information in your taxonomy box. I also added the Insect Project banner to your talk page. One suggestion I have is to take a look at the second paragraph of your colony cycle section. I found it a bit confusing and I think it would help if you went back over and simplified it for other readers. I tried to make some edits but I didn't find it clear what you were trying to say. Overall, great article! Katieortman (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I changed a couple words and sentences around in your intro sections in order to make it more clear and to flow better. I also caught a typo; the author forgot to capitalize Protopolybia in one of these intro sections, so I would keep my eye out for it in the rest of the article just in case. Also in the section “Description and identification,” there is one sentence “This round wing shape may enhance the wasp species’ life force and enable flight” which seems out of place. I think it might fit better if the author reworded it along the lines of “This round wing shape may enhance the wasp species’ flying abilities and increase fitness.” Also the last sentence of this section is a little unclear. It reads “Immature oocytes equal in size differentiate from mature eggs with their cream and less glossy appearance.” Is this sentence describing immature and mature eggs? Or referring to the ovaries/egg cell precursors (oocytes)? In the section “Genetic relatedness,” the sentence “Among queens from the same colony, 0.82 are genetically related” is a little unclear. Does this mean that the relatedness among queens is .82, or that .82 of the queens is related to each other, or that 82% of the queens in a colony are related? The rest of the page is good. I found very few spelling/grammar errors. I turned a couple species names into links. Also, since there are no CC BY-SA images of your wasp (that I can find readily available on the internet), maybe you could put in an image of something else that is important for this species, maybe a plant they forage on or a map of their distribution. Nice job overall! Gaharrison94 (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

There is so much information in this article and it is well organized and well written. When possible, add in a picture to the taxonomy box. The part about the ovarian distinction was particularly interesting. I edited the article for grammar mistakes. I agree that the colony cycle section could be condensed and clearer. In some cases, either use words that the public will understand, or explain the different terminology as you go along. There was not much else to correct, as the article was very thorough and clear. Mhimmelrich (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Creator

I reviewed and edited the colony cycle section to simplify the language. Hopefully the description is no longer confusing. I also incorporated the suggestions to reword a couple sentences in the description and identification section. They should read more coherently now. Thanks to Dr. Strassmann, I have added a picture of the wasp and its nest in the taxonomy box.

Chiararosenbaum (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Chiara Rosenbaum[reply]