Talk:Dolichovespula norwegica

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects: Hymenoptera Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

In reviewing this article, I made some grammar changes as well as punctuation and capitalization changes. Each section is well written and detail oriented. Instead of only putting a citation at the end of each paragraph, at least put one at the beginning of the paragraph even if the information in the paragraph is from the same source. The in-text citation should not wait until the end of the paragraph to be listed. This is specifically in “Nests,” “Colony Cycle,” “Worker Queen Conflict,” “Worker Policing,” and potentially a few others. There is also contradicting information in the "Colony Cycle" section. Mhimmelrich (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence in the overview about this species becoming a pest because it is a changing trend, and I thought it was worth mentioning as a distinct information.--Dwjoanne (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the text under this category was directly copied from the source ( this website http://www.the-piedpiper.co.uk/th4d.htm). While this website provides general information of the physical characteristics of the species, it should not be directly copied, word for word, on the entry. I will use this source in my research of these species but any information I present will be paraphrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elee715 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I separated some information under "Description and Identification" and moved under "Nesting" because they seemed to be two major ideas. --Dwjoanne (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were some genus and family names that you missed to italicize. --Dwjoanne (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information under this category seems more appropriate for "Description"? It would be helpful to have some information about the origin of their names, (i.e. why norwegica? Is this because the species is native to Norway?) When was the name first made? --Dwjoanne (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence mentions, "Every colony starts around late summer", but the third paragraph says, "The colony cycle of D. norwegica is short because these species have a tendency to start in the spring."? --Dwjoanne (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article was extremely interesting and hit on many different topics in-depth. There were some minor changes I made in regards to typos and grammar. One way to avoid these errors would be to put your edits into a word document before submitting them on the page. That way you can spell check to spot small errors and re-read them to fix grammatical errors.

Some other things I'd like to see include an expansion on the mating behavior section. It only talked about the males even though the queens and even the workers could play a role in reproduction. In terms of the workers reproducing, I based it off of the following sentence: “It is also likely that in order for workers to reproduce, it is too costly because it can reduce colony productivity and/or obstruct reproduction of females in the colony.” This sentence was a little confusing and I would advise rewording it since it contains valuable information. Other things I would suggest adding include hyperlinks or descriptions of uncommon definitions since the average reader will not be able to understand everything fully. One smaller thing would be to clarify your nesting section. You provide one example of a nest and I'm not sure whether the characteristics of that one nest remain common among other nests as well. If so, make it sound like these are normal attributes. If not, discuss what an average nest looks like. Once again, this article went incredibly in-depth and with these small additions I believe you'd be in good shape. Peter Eivaz (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This wasp is most definitely not "popular" in Scotland. Nobody keeps it as a pet. Populous or Common may be true but not "Popular" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.156.103 (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dolichovespula norwegica. 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/20141006084814/http://www.commanster.eu/commanster/Insects/Bees/SuBees/Dolichovespula.norwegica.html to http://www.commanster.eu/commanster/Insects/Bees/SuBees/Dolichovespula.norwegica.html

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: 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) 19:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]