Talk:Apis koschevnikovi

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): Vsalazar258. Peer reviewers: Sayabery, Brandon.eng, AddyShak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Add map

Add

this map

to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.100.6 (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit for Class

Hi, I noticed that your site has an extensive description of the species! However, I think adding an image would help your viewer be able to visualize the things you are discussing in the physical description part. I also moved the information that you had under nests to the habitat section, as I thought it flowed better. I hope this change was okay. I didn't think this required a heading either, as it just a little description.

In addition, I think your page could use some more information in terms of behavior. For example, in the costs and benefits of sociality section, maybe you could come up with your own ideas from the other information on the page of what might be beneficial or costly to the species and state so explicitly here. I will try to add some to this section as well.

Great work so far! Hope some of my comments were helpful! Sayabery (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting information about Interspecies broods

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! I enjoyed reading about the Apis koschevnikovi. I did a bit of additional research myself and found a source which spoke even more about the relationship between Apis koschevnikovi and Apis cerana. As such, I added a short heading titled Interspecies Broods and my source for it. Take a look and feel free to add even more to the section as it is very interesting. Brandon.eng (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Proof-Read and Editing

Hi! I enjoyed reading your article! It was very informative and seemed to flow pretty well. I made some corrections to your article in regards to sentence structure and diction. Otherwise, I did not seem to find any thing majorly out of place or flawed. I also took the liberty to try to find some images of the particular species of bee, but failed to find anything on wikimedia.org. If any further improvement should be made, it is to somehow import a photo into wikimedia for this article. AddyShak (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference issues

Hi! I decided to come back to your article to see if there were any changes made to better it. While reading the article, I noticed that the references were not all correctly numbered at the bottom in the reference section. However, I'm unable to fully help you here because I do not know which of the bottom half of references coincide with which information in the actual article. There seems to be just a list of references that do not correspond with any in-line citations in the article. I would suggest that you fix that immediately as to ensure everything is cited correctly! I hope this was helpful! Other than that, I think your article is a great and informative read. AddyShak (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Hello, I am an undergraduate student and Washington University editing the article for a class assignment. I thought the article was well-written, but I have a couple of edits I was able to make, and some suggestions. First, I specified the individual "Buttel-Reepen" to "Hugo Berthold von Buttel-Reepen," and un-hyperlinked "Grigory Aleksandrovich Kozhevnikov," as there does not exist an article dedicated to him. In addition, I would suggest that certain technical words under “Description and Identification” could be explained for the reader to understand the reading, such as “tomenta.” Finally, I read and looked through each section and revised any grammatically incorrect or awkward sentences. Eliseoh (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is well-written, and gives a good surface-level overview of the bee. It seems that you probably ran into a shortage of information during your research, which limited your ability to go into great depth about your bee. You did well with either linking to other pages or explaining uncommon terms, other than "tomenta", which would benefit from some explanation. Given the limitations to information that you seem to have run into, moving forward the article would probably benefit most from some additional explanation to some vague terms like "species specific mating time" that says they are distinct from other species, but doesn't give any specifics about what exactly those distinctions are. Melliott132 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apis koschevnikovi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823065551/http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar:80/apuntes/meliponas/apis_meliponas.htm to http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/meliponas/apis_meliponas.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194905/http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/revistaselectronicas/apidologie/33-1/takahashi.pdf to http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/revistaselectronicas/apidologie/33-1/takahashi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)