Talk:Brachygastra scutellaris

Peer Review

The article could use more citations. There are some sections that contain only one citation per paragraph. The use of more citations would make the article seem like it is drawing from more academic pieces. Also the citations are not clustered in the references section. The article would look neater if every time a reference is repeated, it was clustered together. Using the beta-editing feature, it is quite easy to do this. When going to cite a source, one can select “re-use” and click a source that has previously been used. This makes the article look neater and also shows what same articles the information is coming from. Overall, the article contains a lot of information about the species. Amgoldberg15 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

This entry is verifiable, broad in its coverage, and neutral. The article would benefit for a change in organization to better match the Outline for Wikipedia pages on Vespidae species. I know it can be difficult to find images, but adding an image would definitely improve this article. I added some links throughout the article. Under the morphology section, I was confused by the sentence that read, “Intermediates are females that are uninseminated with partially developed ovaries.” I was confused by the word choice of “uninseminated,” as I do not believe that is a word. I changed this to “not inseminated” but if that is not the meaning you were trying to get across I would recommend changing sentence to better explain what you mean.

MadisonPomerantz (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I edited the overview and introductory sections for flow, and I changed the wording a couple sentences to make the writing more clear. There were a few typos, which I changed, and I added a few links where appropriate. The section on “Sex determination” is a little bit dense, but that is understandable since insect anatomy is definitely a jargon-heavy. But maybe this section could be make a little more understandable by using colloquial synonyms or defining some of the vocabulary. Also I noticed that in the section “Distribution and habitat” the description of Brachygastra nests is not consistent with my previous research on Brachygastra lecheguana, whose nests are usually in shrubbery close to the ground and are usually a gray color, although it varies according to location. Perhaps this section would be more accurate for B. scutellaris, not for Brachygastra in general, but that should be clarified in the article. Also the wording in “Variation” is a little bit confusing at first. Overall the information is interesting. I know, having worked on another Brachygastra species, that there is very limited information on this genus, so I am impressed you were able to find out as much as you did. Nice job! Also, since there are no CC BY-SA images of your wasp (that I can find readily available on the internet), maybe you could put in an image of something else that is important for this species, maybe a plant they forage on or a map of their distribution. Gaharrison94 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought this article contained a lot of great information. The biggest change I made involved the structure of the article; I moved more relevant sections next to each other to make the flow of the article more fluid. I also changed some wording; I would suggest adding citations and going through the article to make the writing less choppy. I also added links through the article where appropriate. Overall, it was a great article! Yangjennyh (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brachygastra scutellaris. 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/20141022131503/http://www.gbif.org/species/120648717 to http://www.gbif.org/species/120648717

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) 01:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brachygastra scutellaris. 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/20160304043720/http://data.gbif.org/datasets/resource/13473 to http://data.gbif.org/datasets/resource/13473

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)