Talk:Tetragonula carbonaria

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): Liz.yucknut. Peer reviewers: Sayabery, Mmc7777, Brandon.eng, KimCourtney.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article was well-written, thorough, and covered many important aspects of the behavior of Tetragonula carbonaria. The article was well organized and I made a few capitalization edits of the headings to comply with Wikipedia standards. Moreover, I added a few more links to other Wikipedia pages in various places in the article in hopes of increasing traffic to the article, specifically tegula, cerumen, opportunism, and a few others. I also took out a few links that don’t have pages yet, specifically the names of some of the orchids, T. hockingsi, Syntretus, and a few others. In terms of grammar and syntax, I merged some short sentences, most notable in cases where a sentence did not contain essential information. I would love to see some information on how T. carbonaria effects humans and why they are ecologically important to us. Also, what does T. carbonaria eat and what eats them? Great work so far! Mebennett49 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Mebennett49

Hey Liz! Great job on the article, it was very focused on clearly organized with respect to the various characteristics and behaviors of Tetragonula carbonaria. I made a syntactical corrections, including changing "body" to "bodies" in the final sentence of the "Bees" subheading section under "Description". I also made a few typo edits, such as putting a space between "4.3" and "mm", "4.6" and "mm" and "1.5" and "m" in the "Bees" and "Nest Structure" subheadings under "Description." Finally, I added some hyperlinks to some terminology that might not be considered common knowledge, including "pollen", "drone", "nectar", and "fitness." It would interesting to investigate or conduct more research on mating behavior within the colony, especially because not much is included on male and female interaction. Overall, however, this article is off to a great start! Cmbakwe (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Overall, the article on Tetragonula carbonaria was well concise and well written. However, there were a number of grammatical improvements that I made to improve the article. The first sentence in the introduction reads: “Tetragonula carbonaria (previously known as Trigona carbonaria) is a stingless bee endemic to the north-east coast of Australia.” Because there is not comma between “bee” and “endemic”, the sentence runs together and is confusing. Proper comma usage necessitates that a free modifiers which refer to the beginning or middle of a sentence are separated from the rest of the sentence using a comma. By rephrasing the sentence as “stingless bee, endemic to north-east coast of Australia”, is it much clearer that the T. carbonaria is endemic to Australia, rather than the stingless bee being endemic to Australia. In the “Taxonomy and Phylogeny” section, I also linked the words “apidae” and “apinae” to their respective Wikipedia pages. Below the heading “Honey” there was a typo in the last sentence, which originally read: “T. carbonaria honey has such a high value that it has potential to serve medicinal needs both nutironally and pharmaceutically.” I corrected the misspelled word. I also linked “honeybees” to its Wikipedia page so that readers can obtain additional information when reading this article. Lastly, I shortened and separated the following sentence: “The nesting sites of T. carbonaria are in high insulating trees up to 1.5m in diameter, and they create the largest honey and pollen pots compared to the other species of the Tetragonula genus, which may help with efficient food storage”. Not only were there two separate independent clauses that should have been connected by a conjunction (for example: and, but, yet), but the sentence was run-on. I recommend restructuring the sentence to become: “The nesting sites of T. carbonaria are located near the top tree trunks that are 1.5m in diameter, and are predominantly found in trees that are well insulated. Members of T. carbonaria also create the largest honey and pollen pots compared to the other species of the Tetragonula genus, which may help with efficient food storage.” A world map would also have been a positive addition.Mmc7777 (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Great work, all of you guys (Liz yucknut included). Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! I found your article very interesting starting off with your introduction. This is a really interesting species you've written about here and the interesting facts in your introduction made me want to read the rest of your article. I would like to comment on a small issue in your article. I don't think it is necessary to have a "Stingless Bees" section in your article. Your writing should be specific about T. carbonaria. As such, it is necessary to mention that T. carbonaria is included among stingless bees, but your page should really hone on specifics and maybe even comment on how T. carbonaria is different from other stingless bees. If you want your readers to be educated on stingless bees, a hyperlink should suffice. Otherwise, great work thus far! Brandon.eng (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ii. One part of this article that really caught my attention was the extensive section on “Human Importance.” I really appreciated that this article discussed multiple ways in which the bee is of importance for us such as pollination, honey production, and bee keeping. Furthermore, the information on the many interactions of this species with other organisms such as parasites and predators was very well-written, concise, and well-cited as a good Wikipedia article should be. Overall, this article seems to have very clear writing making it easy to follow for any reader. I think headers were appropriate, images included were useful and links to other articles were abundant. Great job! Mira.tbaum (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits for Class

This page seems very thoroughly researched and covers a wide range of topics, including descriptions and human importance and worker-bee conflicts which are all very different topics. I just went through and added some links out to some other Wikipedia pages for words that were more scientific or unfamiliar to me or to a common reader. I also added these links for pages to other species when you referred to them (like in the predator section). I thought the page was well-presented overall and besides that just fixed a few grammatical errors that I noticed. The only other suggestion I have for this page is to add a distribution map of where these bees actually inhabit, so that the viewer has a visual understanding of where you are talking about when you discuss nesting, etc. Sayabery (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits and comments

Overall, this page was very thorough with a lot of information on Tetragonula carbonaria. There are few things I recommend adding in order to make this page even more informative. First, I would expand the taxobox by adding distribution map and conservation status if you can. I personally look at the taxobox first in addition to the overview description when I’m reading Wikipedia pages, so I think making the taxobox as thorough as you can always be beneficial. Also, I would think about putting the “Stingless Bees” section under taxonomy because I think it would not only make sense to be under that section, but also flesh out the taxonomy section to make it more interesting. Under the “Bees” subsection in the “Description” section, I would add more information about queens, including their appearances and their sizes, because currently there is size information on workers with specific numbers but not on queens. I fixed some grammar and spelling errors, and fixed some sentence structures for clarity. Also, I noted where I thought citation was needed. Lastly, I changed the subsection “Human interaction” to “Bee keeping” because I thought that was more descriptive of the paragraph. I hope my comments and edits were helpful! KimCourtney (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all I am very impressed about the amount of detail that was included within this page, especially within the "Interaction with Other Species" section. This section was very interesting because i have not read another article with that amount of detail included for that sections and the interactions themselves were very interesting. I first made some minor grammar edits and sentence structure edits. I thought you did a great job with the writing and there were only very few and minor mistakes. I would recommend that look over the page again for grammar and sentence structure. I would also recommend adding more behavioral sections. You seem to have a few behavioral sections that include alot of detail. One behavioral section you could add is communication behaviors. Communication is important for many other bee behaviors and is a could section to ensure a readers' robust understanding. Overall good job and keep up the good work! Helenaxeros (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

I found this article to be extremely comprehensive and well written. I made a few editions on grammatical mistakes as well as changes to help the article flow more easily, but otherwise had little to correct. Nice work. Allykunze —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Lizzie! This article is super duper, just like you! This article was largely finished and up to date with the comments and suggestions presented on the Talk page. The topics are diverse and contain a large amount of solid information backed by well-written sources. The article also contains some great graphics that help visualize some of the more technical points and make it easier to read and understand. Although the article provides a sizable amount of in-text links, I was able to add a few more, including “beeswax” under the “Nest structure” heading. I also reworded some things to make the article flow more easily. For instance, I changed the phrase “progeny of a queen who only mated with a single male” to progeny of a singly-mated queen” in the “Genetic relatedness within colonies” paragraph. I also deleted “the” from “the intruders” in the first sentence under the “Defense” heading. Aside from these minor changes, the article looked pretty excellent. Cratermann (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a well-written and researched article, I especially appreciated the section at the end about importance to humans, which is super useful in giving context for why the reader should care about learning about this bee. I made one or two edits for spelling and grammar, and added a link to the page for propolis so that the average reader could find out what that is. A couple ideas for further improvement moving forward: in the Description section, you make a couple size comparisons to other species, but these are only useful if information regarding their size is readily available (which it isn't since the other species don't have their own pages), it would be better to just say how big they are. More citations might be preferred, since Wikipedia wants a citation for every fact where possible. There are a couple of unexplained terms, such as a semicomb and batumen. These are just a few easy steps towards making this article a great contribution to the body of knowledge on Wikipedia. Thanks for the hard work! Melliott132 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)