Talk:Lasioglossum vierecki

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): Raymundo.marcelo. Peer reviewers: Liz.yucknut, Paanur.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments and Editing

For the minimal information present, this article is well-written. Based on the references used, it seems as if there are very few articles that are strictly about the Lasioglossum vierecki. I can understand how difficult it could be to write about this species, with such minimal information out there. In the female description section, I changed "brownish" and "yellowish" to more appropriate adjectives. I also revised the "sand specialist" sentence in the Distribution section. Hopefully with more research, this page can continue to grow! Liz.yucknut (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review and Editing

The Lasioglossum vierecki entry provided some interesting facts and was a good start to what I hope will become an interesting and detailed article. Overall the writing was terse and understandable for the general population. I was very interested in the different kinds of plants L. vierecki pollinated. I really enjoyed how the author linked those plants species in the text so the readers could find out more information about them. I did very minimal editing to the grammar and sentence structure of this article. The majority of the sentences I did change, as I added some punctuation and restructured the sentence to make the meaning clearer to the reader. I only had to make major edits to one sentence within “Description and Identification” section. The sentence was attempting to explain the anatomy of the antennae and did not make any sense. I looked in the reference section and changed the sentence based on my interpretation of the text. Within the “Description and Identification” section I linked antennae, mesothorax, tomentum, metathorax and clypeus. These words needed to be linked because the anatomy described was very complex structure and had no definition attached to them. I linked any of the anatomical descriptions I could find on Wikipedia. I did this because I believe that by including these definitions I could help the reader to get a basic understanding of the anatomy. This section really needs a lot work so it can include more definitions and give a clearer picture of the bee’s anatomy. I also added one of two clarifying words to the entire entry including “tribe” before “Halictini” in the “Taxonomy and Phylogeny” section and “sand” in front of “sweat bees” in the Overview. Adding these words just helped ensure that an average person could better understand the content. Lastly, I changed the Lasioglossum vierecki to L. vierecki throughout the whole entry. I did this to make the species title consistent and help make the entry look more professional and trustworthy. Helenaxeros (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

I appreciate the amount of research that went into this article, indicated by the amount of sources used. I found the page to be well written and especially liked the physical description of the females and males. Given that this article is short, I felt that it was important that the information within the article was not repetitive and was well referenced. I attempted to go through the information and make sure that specific phrases weren’t restated, which I noticed in the Overview and in the Taxonomy & Phylogeny sections specifically. I found the information within the “Flowers Visited” subsection to be slightly overwhelming, and would suggest reformatting this portion as a list rather than a paragraph. Paanur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

If possible I would add a range map to your article to better illustrate the location of your species. I changed “scutum” to “scutellum” and linked the page because I assume that is what you intended to write. Overall your description and Identification section was difficult to read with many words that are not common knowledge. I would work to simplify it or to better define the vocabulary that you use. I tried to link some of the anatomical terms, but had difficulty with others. I would also add more information to your colony cycle subheading if possible. Overall your article was well-written and informative! Claire.packer (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lasioglossum vierecki. 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/20150926182349/http://content75.eol.org/data_objects/32696378 to http://content75.eol.org/data_objects/32696378

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) 18:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)