Talk:Vespula acadica

General Comment

Overall, this was a really good start to the page. Most of the sections were comprehensive, but I think the colony cycle part should have some more specific details about what the actualy colony cycle of V. acadica is, rather than just general information about Vespula wasps. I have changed the Vespula acadica's throughout the article to V. acadica, and also made them italics. Jamiehalpern (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Great article!

You did a very nice job making the introduction section like an abstract of your article. It is thorough and well-worded. I’m sure you’ve looked, but if eventually you could find a picture that would add a lot. You also did a great job adding links within your piece. I went through and fixed a typo in Colony cycle, and deleted several extraneous spaces. Additionally, in the Mauling section, I changed 97% to Ninety seven percent because it is at the beginning of a sentence. In worker specialization, you use jargon such as “flexible age polyethism” and “task fixation,” which are terms a lay-person might not be savvy with. I think it would be helpful to provide a brief explanation of what these mean. I am also a little bit confused about the Nest sanitation section – are you saying that this species does clean feces from the comb just not thoroughly? I linked “haploid” to its Wikipedia page in case readers don’t know what it is. It would be cool to maybe add an outside link about the theories about bias in sex ratio and parental investment between the sexes because it is a large concept that is hard to simply link in, but may be of interest to a reader. Lastly, the Defense section talks about some really intriguing behaviors but I am curious as to why the insects perform them. If you are going to revise it would be helpful to add a sentence explaining the hypothesized significance of the behaviors observed. Rey_ks (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Suggestions

• My main contribution to the page was to reformat the reference page. There were citation errors (i.e., named citations that didn’t have an antecedent) and then the reference list itself was bulleted, not numbered so I went ahead and fixed that.
• In addition, the article did not include an “External links” section, so I created a section and included a link to a page that would give the reader more information on the description and identification of the species, as well as several pictures for illustration.
• Overall, the article seems pretty complete with the exception of the “Description and identification” and “Distribution and habitat” sections. Those two were fairly short and could probably be expanded upon.
• Lastly, I fixed a few minor grammatical errors. However, the article seemed really thorough and besides suggestions made above (as well as inclusion of a picture), I really have no other suggestions. Great job! Marecto (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for GA status

Similar to the other article, there are introduction paragraphs about “Taxonomy and phylogenetics,” “Description and identification,” and “Distribution and habitat” are very short and should be expanded on in order to reach the status of a GA. The “Defense” section is also very short and could be very interesting. This would benefit the overall article very well. These changes should only be made to achieve GA status, otherwise the article looks great! Mhimmelrich (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

anthropoid?

In the section on diet, the writer says that the primary prey are "anthropoids". Humans and apes are anthropoids. I believe he meant "arthropods". "Arthropoid" is not a word in any dictionary I checked.Ealtram (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)