Talk:Polistes dorsalis

This article could benefit from another read through for sentence structure and flow, but was over all very interesting and complete. Something that caught my attention: you said that wasp helpers care for the young and old in a colony. Do wasps age such that they must be cared for, or do you mean that helpers contribute to everyone in the nest? I think that this should be reworded for clarity. I liked your elaboration of the worker-queen conflict, and the antimicrobial qualities of the venom is very interesting. I would suggest adding sections on diet and predation. It would be good to know more about his wasp’s interactions with other species. Great work! Kellykries (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

Overall, I thought this article was incredibly well done. Each section that was done was quite thorough and provided a lot of high-quality information, along with an explanation for each bit of information. Specifically, you provided a lot of very good information regarding dominance within this wasp, especially how it develops and how it is maintained with the usage of pheromones. I think the most significant improvements that could be made to this article revolve around what is lacking. First of all, I agree with the other poster in that I also believe that sections on the diet and the direct predation (not parasitism) that P. dorsalis experiences should be added, as I believe that this information would augment an already well done “Interaction with other species” section. Also, certain sections, such as “Development of Dominance,” start out with sentences like “There might also be advantages in certain wasp groups to having this type of structure.” Essentially, by starting in this way, it assumes that the reader read the prior section. There isn’t anything necessarily wrong with this, but in case someone comes to your page looking specifically for how dominance develops, for example, I think it would be better for each section to be fairly autonomous from others preceding it. Finally, your page didn’t have a ton of links to other pages, so I added some. These criticisms are quite minor; this is one of the best articles I’ve seen. Well done! RJPet (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Nice job overall. When possible, add a picture to the taxonomy box. Also, there are a few sentences and phrases that could be clearer. In the “Colony Growth and Decline” section, the first phrase “Throughout the early month May,” do you mean to say “Early in May” or “Throughout May” because I would not consider May to be an “early month.” Small fixes like that should be made to create a more coherent article. I also changed some grammar in places that I thought needed it. Mhimmelrich (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I edited the section of “Behavior” for “sentence flow” as someone else mentioned on the talk page that it was a bit awkward at parts in the article. For some reason, the links that were incorporated for some particular words were showing up as “[Dominance hierarchy|dominance hierarchy]” rather than just “dominance hierarchy” in blue letters. I’m not sure if they had been working in an earlier version of the article, but I just removed the duplicate words just to be safe. This article was extremely well done, with most of the sections containing a lot of information. I especially liked how the taxonomy box was completely filled out to include conservation status and a map of where the wasp can be found. However, there was no picture of the wasp and I also couldn’t find a creative commons photograph to incorporate into the article. I also think the article would benefit from a few other photographs, such as Elasmus polistis which parasitizes P. dorsalis larvae. Samontenegro (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)