Talk:Bee/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 20:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Will work on review shortly.

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Please remove "This unusual situation could possibly explain the multiple independent evolutions of eusociality (arising at least nine separate times) within the Hymenoptera. However, some eusocial species such as termites are not haplodiploid." (Section "Haplodiploid breeding system") What is the problem with this statement? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC) It's well supported in the literature; two refs added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC) On second thought, no problem. Gug01 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Also the section "As food" needs to be expanded greatly. Added a paragraph on honey bee products with refs for honey, pollen, propolis and royal jelly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I still think the section needs to be expanded even more before I can pass this article. Gug01 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I have added a bit more information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Now the section is sufficiently expanded. I will pass the article. Gug01 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars or disputes since at least October 2013.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.