Talk:Tetragonula iridipennis

	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 2015. Further details are available on the course page.

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. Peer reviewers: Danakes6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Great work overall. I changed “Many older references erroneously placed this species in Melipona, an unrelated genus from the New World,[1] and until recently it was placed in Trigona therefore it is often still mistakenly referred to as Trigona iridipennis” to “Many older references erroneously placed this species in Melipona, an unrelated genus from the New World,[1] and until recently it was placed in Trigona, therefore still often mistakenly referred to as Trigona iridipennis”. I also corrected grammar in the Taxonomy and phylogenetics section, Distribution and habitat section, colony cycle section, mating behavior section, diet section, predators section, and medicinal honey section. I linked eusocial and gram negative.

Should scutelum should be scutellum and should (Apis mellifera L.) just be (Apis mellifera)?

But overall great research!Raymundo.marcelo (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I would recommend adding more to the diet section. It looks a little unbalanced with only one sentence. I really liked the predator section. I thought it made the article more interesting and highlighted an important inter-species interaction. I liked the part about propolis, and the photo was helpful in understanding it. I would like to see more on the division of labor within the colony. Also I wasn’t sure if any female could become a queen or if they were physiologically different?Courtney.cleveland (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2

I think that more information could be added about females since males are discussed. It seems that there was information on queens so that may be something to include in that section as well. Overall, I just made minor grammar fixes and I rearranged a sentence in the habitat question that discussed the different sites in India to make it clearer. I also added links to the trees mentioned in the diet section and changed jack fruit to jackfruit because that is the name of the tree and the name of its linked Wikipedia page.Danakes6 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danakes6 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 3

This article is well written, organized and has nicely developed sections. However, I did find some grammatical mistakes that I fixed. Nothing major but they mostly had to do with commas. I added hyperlinks to mandible, setae, pollen, honey, flavonoids, flavonols, antibacterial, antiviral, gram positive and nitric oxide. Adding hyperlinks to these words is important for people who do not have a science background because it helps them understand these technical terms and their significance. I would recommend expanding the section on diet, maybe some other species of trees in the Indian area can be found. I would also recommend expanding the section on colony cycle. Mohp7 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]