Talk:Paratrigona subnuda

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): Helenaxeros. Peer reviewers: Courtney.cleveland, Mebennett49, Xerylium, Paanur.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

I took out some hyperlinks that did not link to actual pages to help clean up the article, such as the species mentioned in the diet section. Further, I made a few editions in sentence structure throughout to help the article flow a little better. Overall, good job!! I would suggest, however, looking at your sources and fixing the errors there. Allykunze —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments 10/29/15

A few additional things I would recommend would be to use the actual name, Paratrigona Subnuda sometimes instead of Earth Jatai for variety and to reinforce that they are just different names. Colony growth seems smaller than the other sections, so expanding it even by a sentence or two might make the article look more balanced. I would also recommend adjusting the last sentence because it’s a little wordy and I’m not sure exactly what it means. I just made some minor additions, like adding categories and fixing heading capitalization, as well as some grammar fixes for clarity. I tried to get rid of the "orphan" status but I couldn't find it mentioned in any existing articles. Courtney.cleveland (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

I appreciate all the hard work that went into this article. To start, I changed all instances of the use of the name “Earth Jataí” to the species name “P. subnuda” because that is a common name in Portuguese. Given that this is the English language Wikipedia, I think it is appropriate to mention the common name at the beginning of the article, but to refer to the species by its actual name throughout the rest of the article. Moreover, I added some page links to the article in hopes of increasing traffic to the page, specifically Neotropical, Mesoamerica, eusociality, and a few others. I also removed the article’s orphan status by linking to the species in the general page about stingless bees. I made some minor punctuation and wording edits in order to make the article flow a little better in some parts. I’d love to see some information on how P. subnuda interact with humans. What is their ecological importance to us? How do they impact our ecological niche? Overall, though, well done! Mebennett49 (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Mebennett49

Peer Review

I was very impressed by the thoroughness and level of research done for this Wikipedia page. The Behavior section especially, was very in depth and taught me a large amount about this species. In editing this Wikipedia page, I first focused on looking for grammatical errors. I found that there were a few places in which the flow of the article could be stronger, in addition to some spelling and grammar missteps that I edited. Additionally, I added in the heading “Nest Structure” within the Description and Identification category and the headings “Colony Growth” and “Colony Initiation” in the colony cycle category in order to emphasize clarity and conciseness, both which were listed in the Wikipedia guideline for a good article. Paanur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

First off, only the genus, subgenus and proper species name are italicized. Also, you got the taxonomical relationships incorrect, which I am very confused about as your taxobox is correct, but the information in the overview and Taxonomy sections are outdated so I fixed this. In addition, the Taxonomy section does not describe much about this bee specifically. Do you know who discovered it and when? Where does its name comes from?

For the Identification section, you need to add more about P. subnuda's specific morphology. The information you provide makes it impossible to distinguish P. subnuda from most stingless bees. I also moved the Ant nest section to be a subsection of Nest structure as it fits better here. There is no interaction between Atta ants and this bee so this information does not belong in a section about interspecies interactions.

In the Distribution section, is that 3 supposed to be a reference placeholder?

In the Colony cycle section, I think you forgot to create a subheading for Colony Reproduction, so I did that. Also, this section does not mention anything about how long colonies last or how frequently new colonies are formed. In addition I clarified what a gyne was as the average reader may not know.

The first sentence of the Dominance hierarchy section was very similar to another article, so I rephrased it.

For the Division of labor section, you cannot attribute this information to P. subnuda specifically when the reference talks about stingless bees in general. It is okay to include this information, but it needs to be clear that this information pertains to stingless bees as a whole and not P. subnuda.

For the Foraging behavior section, you should not introduce a species by abbreviating it's genus as this can greatly confuse readers as there may be multiple species with mombuca in their name. Also, the article cited is not the correct one so I exchanged it for the correct one. Additionally, the latter half of the first paragraph of this section attributes facts to P. subnuda, citing articles that do not support what you have written. Just because the activity patterns of P. subnuda are similar to G. mombuca does not mean you can attribute the study's results on G. mombuca to P. subnuda as well. I highly recommend going to the original sources to be certain of what P. subnuda's behavior is like. I deleted this information from the article. I also edited the second paragraph as the two bees comprised 80% of all foraging bees, not just those in the strata.

For the Oviposition section, I made it clear that the first three sentences describe behavior common to all bees of the Meliponini tribe.

For the Workers' behavior section, you again cannot attribute this information to this bee specifically as this information is about stingless bees in general and then about Melipona favosa.

I deleted a sentence in the Human importance section as it was repetitive.

This article is missing a picture of the bee as well as a distribution map.

I fixed a spelling mistake in reference 3 (Paratrigona Subnuda (Moure)). I also fixed the link for reference 12 (Virgin queens) as it linked to a different article.

This article will need to be reviewed by someone who speaks Portuguese and can verify the information cited from websites written in Portuguese as I cannot do that. Xerylium (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments on your article

Hi! I enjoyed reading your article, but I had a few suggestions that may make it a better article.

Firstly, I think adding a picture of the bee would be very beneficial to the reader. Secondly, I took the liberty to reorganize a section or two to make it flow better. For example, I moved the ¨oviposition process behavior" underneath the ¨dominance hierarchy" section, because I did not know what it was when you mention it in the last sentence under the ¨dominance hierarchy"section. Other than that, I could only find a few syntactical missteps that I corrected. I would suggest that you find more information about the specific species Paratrigona subnuda; a lot of your information is mainly about stingless bees in general. This can really be an obstruction for readers who are trying to learn more about the specific species. AddyShak (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey! Good job on the article! I enjoyed reading and learning about your bee. I thought you did a very detailed and thorough job of presenting your bee. I especially liked how you split the colony cycle into 3 separate sections. I just made a few minor edits to your article. I put some hyperlinks that I thought might be useful and edited some of the grammar. I tried to make your article more concise as well. Also, I think it would be a good idea to find a picture for your bee! Matthewkim93 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Helpful suggestions and Edits

This article was filled with information on behavior, which I enjoyed reading. I did, however, make some changes to the ways sections were organized and some grammatical edits. For example, I moved the section “Nest structure” and its subsection “Using abandoned ant nests” under “Distribution and habitat”; these two sections relate to the topic of habitat. I added hyperlinks to “Neotropics” (I removed the hyperlink to Neotropical under “Distribution and habitat” since it is mentioned earlier than that) and “Cretaceous” in the first paragraph under “Taxonomy and phylogeny” and “thorax” under “Description and identification.” Perhaps changing “Using abandoned ant nests” to “Use of abandoned nests would make the heading sound better as heading. Further, it would be nice if pictures could be included to supplement the textual content; even if pictures of the bee are not available, pictures of the plant species that Paratrigona subnuda obtain their pollen and nectar from would add make the article more intriguing. Pretty Ggood article overall! Cmbakwe (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)