Talk:Polistes metricus

Untitled

My name is Kai Jones and I am a student of Behavioral Ecology. I have edited the P. metricus page in terms of the behavior I have researched. I have added information about eusociality, sex ratios, and local mate competition.

Review: November 2013

Kai, wonderful job with this article! Here are a few critiques that I have:

1. I think the summary should either be one large paragraph or you should add to the sentence long paragraph in the middle. I would also extract the information pertaining to the range of the species and make a "Range" heading. That way it's easier for people that are visiting this article to quickly find this crucial information.
2. You don't need a subheading under a heading if there is only one subheading (Under "Effects of Resources").
3. You might consider adding a section titled "Associated Species" (or something along those lines). Under this heading you could describe other organisms that are like Polistes metricus, are in symbiotic relations with the species (any mites, bacterium, or fungus?), or have any other sort of attachment, ecologically, to the Polistes metricus. Obviously this section can be merged with your "Parasites and Parasitoids" section, but I just think it could be expanded.

I changed a few grammatical things, but overall this is a very clean article! Again, WELL DONE! Jdhale (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

Peer Review:

1.Is the entire section on Deviation from the 1:1 sex ratio from reference 4? If so it might be good to have one more citation in that paragraph.

2.Also in the same section: Are there other species in Hymenoptera that have a deviation from the 1:1 sex ratio? It might be interesting to know what other species that share this characteristic.

3.The Metcalf study cited in the Local mate competition section is really interesting. You could consider adding what phenotypic differences the study was concerned with. It would also be interesting to know why inbreeding is not normal or evolutionarily favorable in this species, if the paper discusses that.

This article is very well-written, concise, and organized. Good job!

Amruthapk (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I made your writing more concise by cutting out unnecessary words and translating some of your longer sections into terse statements. I think that adding more of a description of the differences between reproductive and worker behavior in the P. metricus section would enhance your commentary on their differences, especially since they are so morphologically similar. Perhaps, you could delve deeper into the description of the “deviated” sex ratio by providing a plausible explanation for the modified .55 ratio. I greatly appreciated your in-depth description of local resource Enhancement, size, and reproductive ability of P. metricus, melding these seemingly disparate elements into one section. Maybe, you could add greater description of nest reutalization, which you define but do not further describe. Overall, this is a highly informative article that, with some enhancement of the sections mentioned above, will become Good Article material. I primarily assisted by modifying some loose phrasing and adding precision to certain words in order to keep the article’s inforamtion as technically accurate as possible.

--Gschalet (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Behavior Section

I have added a section of Nest sharing and I will be adding more sections to the behavior in the future. I will be focusing on the behavior but I will add to other sections in order to get the article to good article status. kaijones5245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaijones5245 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is very complete and compiles a lot of interesting information about behavior. I have one tiny suggestion: please describe what type of animals the parasites C. pegasalis and X. peckii are. Also, you never spelled out the full scientific name for C. pegasalis (what is its genus?). Besides this, great job! Blubird25 (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Review: September 2014

This article is relatively complete and well written; however, additional information would make it more complete. A section on mating would allow further discussion on monogamy. The article mentions that P. metricus are monogamous but does not provide further discussion on this topic. Because monogamy can be closely tied to eusociality this could be useful expand upon. In addition, a section on life cycle could be worthwhile to include since the eusociality of this species is important and the species’ life cycle may help us better understand the evolution of eusociality. Finally, a section on conflict would allow an expanded discussion of the worker-queen conflict. Though this is briefly mentioned, this is an important aspect that could be expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadisonPomerantz (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing this fall

Hello, I am a student at Washington University in St. Louis and I will be editing this article as part of my Behavioral Ecology class. Feel free to contact me with advice and constructive criticism. Carzhong (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Peivaz Review

This article touched upon a lot of different behaviors and aspects of this wasp’s life-cycle and behavior’s that are specific to this species. Overall, the organization and grammar were good but I still made small changes when they were necessary. Also, you used plenty of sources. One area that could use a bit more explanation is the taxonomy and phylogeny section. I didn’t really get a good sense of what defined the particular species. The diet section could also benefit from additional information. One sentence reads “Polistes also eat other insects.” No additional insects were given and you focused solely on caterpillars as prey. Lastly, since you stated that Polistes metricus is one of the only species to reutilize nests, I expected there to be more information as to how they are able to do this and what is different about their nests from other species’ nests that allows reutilization.

There were some things that needed work or stylistic changes. One thing I noticed was that the introduction was pretty lengthy. Personally I feel that there should be less information on the sex ratio and other more in-depth topics in the intro. Condensing the intro would make for a more enticing read. Another stylistic change is to consider using less linking. While linking words that are more scientific is good, I thought that it was excessive to link words like “females” or “New York.” Additionally, I felt that there was unnecessary wordiness or information. For example, in the paragraph discussing “Larval provisioning” under “Malaxation”, there was the following sentence: “Whatever is withheld is quickly taken up by the body of the female and spreads out throughout her other body regions and organs, where it is taken up as nourishment.” I found this to be a tad excessive and would prefer that it is cut out so that the article is a little bit denser.Peivaz

Peer Review

Great article! It's very comprehensive. I made corrections to small spelling and format errors, including multiple instances where the species name was not italicized. In order to make the article flow better, I would recommend breaking up your larger blocks of text, such as in the "Foundress mortality" subsection, into paragraphs. In addition, I would recommend expanding on your "Predators" section or combining it with another section because it is currently too short to remain on its own (perhaps consider combining it with the "Prey" section for an overall "Predators and prey" or "Predation" section). Furthermore, I would recommend adding more pictures to illustrate the material because the inclusion of images is a criterion for "Good Article" status. I would also suggest overhauling your reference list. First, you have several free standing links that require more information (e.g., name, author, publication information) in order to be properly cited. In addition, you should properly format the titles (as well as the name of your species) in the reference list (e.g., italicization of databases). Finally, consider adding external links to other sources to give the reader opportunity for further reading. Good job! Marecto (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polistes metricus. 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/20131203002405/http://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/bitstream/handle/10724/6295/hodges_amanda_c_200212_phd.pdf?sequence=1 to http://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/bitstream/handle/10724/6295/hodges_amanda_c_200212_phd.pdf?sequence=1

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)