# Talk:Megachile campanulae

"Researchers suggest the bees' behavior is an example of adaptive behavior (ecology). The emerging bees were free of parasites, and these new ways to build and live in nests gave more protection to them."
-- they don't really live in the nests, at least not after they are born.  Also, I need to do more research as to exactly what the primary article describes as the adaptive role using plastics played, or if this was just lay press fluff...
-- here is is" Although perhaps incidentally collected, the novel use of plastics in the nests of bees could reflect ecologically adaptive traits necessary for survival in an increasingly human-dominated environment."{{http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/ES13-00308.1?queryID=%24%7BresultBean.queryID%7Dhttp://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/ES13-00308.1?queryID=%24{resultBean.queryID}}}

From my talk page, courtesy of another editor: —Gaff ταλκ 14:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Megachile campanulae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My first insect review, I think. Anyways, sections of this article are better than others. Mainly, I think that the distribution section can be greatly expanded as well as rewritten. More later. IJReid (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


### First read
This article, while originally seeming only slightly off, turns out to be more in need of a do-over than I though.

Why is the title the scientific name, not the common name as in all modern animal GAs I know of?
Information in the lead should also be in the article, and would therefore not need to be referenced.
Done. —Gaff ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The information of "Megachile (leafcutter and resin bees)" should be in "Taxonomy", and anyways, the section title is very strange.
Working on it. Made some copy edits already.—Gaff ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
This has been looked over. Does it meet your approval @IJReid:? —Gaff ταλκ 21:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It is good enough for me to strike the querry. However, are any cladograms published that include it as well as related species? If so, place a request here, and I will get to it. Also, what are the relationships of it within the genus, as well as subgenus? IJReid (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll do my best to answer these questions by placing edits in the article, but it may require a melittologist or at least somebody with more experience dealing with taxonomy. I posted some info re: cladogram to the article talk page.  —Gaff ταλκ 02:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The image in "Life cycle and behaviour" does not seem to have anything to do with Megachile campanulae, nor with the life cycle of Megachile.
I removed this image.  It was not helpful.  I added one of a resin bee nest with larvae. I can try to find something with a cross section of the nest. —Gaff ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The section title "'Plastic nests'" should be renamed "Artificial nests".
Maybe "synthetic nests"? Artificial nests could include the wooden boxes with holes drilled. This section is about the Toronto study where the bees actually gathered plastics/synthetics for nest building.  —Gaff ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Even better than my suggestion. IJReid (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
A total range map should be used, and placed in the taxon box.
I'm building the map. The WP Maproom was not able to complete it.—Gaff ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gaff: A really good website for maps is ShareMap. To move an image to commons, select the tool icon, and chose "export to wikimedia commons". IJReid (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm finding references to the bee range being more extended than the initial references described, so will have to hold off on making the map.  There are other insect GA's without a map.  Eventually, however, either I will make a mpa or have one made.—Gaff ταλκ 02:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 Done See article.  —Gaff ταλκ 04:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The subspecies of Megachile campanulae are only mentioned in the "Description" section.
Moved to taxonomy and naming section.  Is that what you had in mind?  These subspecies are not described in ITIS, so may be archaic, but they are mentioned in the reference provided.  —Gaff ταλκ 22:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Coelioxys sodalis is not mentioned in the article as a kleptoparasite.
It is there as brood parasite. I can rephrase.  I'm not sure the image is helpful, but it looks interesting and is marginally relevant...—Gaff ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I replaced it with an image of another parasite, which has been more specifically implicated. —Gaff ταλκ 21:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
"Polination" should definitely be greatly expanded.
I'll work on prose here and see if I can find more sourced material.  The plant list is what is documented in literature.  I don't want to get into original research waters, by making (obvious) suppositions that they pollinate other plants in the area.  SOmething about be anatome relevant to pollination would be appropriate.—Gaff ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I will give this article a week, for these to be corrected, but if at least three are still not done I will fail the article. IJReid (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


### Reply #1 -- naming conventions
@IJReid: Regarding article title Megachile campanulae rather than Bellflower resin bee:  the current arrangement is in keeping with guidelines at WP:WikiProject_Insects#Names_and_titles. The guidelines read:  "In cases where common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise."  This bee has more attention placed on it by the scientific rather than the common interest.  Google results return mostly articles on the scientific name, with only a few news articles citing the common name.  (The news articles are in reference to the "Plastic nests" phenomenon described in the article).  I suspect that if we counted page hits to determine which has the most page hits, the article heading as written would be the champion, as this is the page linked to by the Did-you-know.  Thus to make the page move will create a situation whereby there are more links through the redirect.  My understanding is that this adds work onto the Wikipedia servers and slows down the system.  I'm not particular on this point, however.  If it is required that we submit a page move request in order to bring the article to GA status, I can post the request.  As a non-admin, I cannot move onto an already created redirect page with more than one edit in the history. The current Bellflower resin bee page has two: one editor created the redirect and another listed the rationale.  The backlog at Wikipedia:Requested_moves could be well over a week.  Thoughts? —Gaff ταλκ 14:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, the page can stay. As I am not a common editor of insect articles, I was not aware of the guidelines. I have struck out the querry. PS: I downsized the section you created, just so that an unnecessary section is not added to the talk page, and the edit link at the first header will allow editing of the entire review. PPS: I find that as a non-admin, the easiest way to move an article to a redirect is to copy-paste the info and then redirect the original page. IJReid (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


### Issue #2: Information in the lead should also be in the article, and would therefore not need to be referenced.
Fixed!  Not technically required per WP:LEADCITE, but an easy fix.  I agree: it cuts down on unnecessary clutter.


### Detail problems
Now that those major problems are done, I will get into some of the more minor problems with detail and prose.

The lead can definitely be expanded with some info.
On this note, can you comment on this edit and the commentary on article talk page? It would be helpful before I launch into some failed attempts that get reverted. —Gaff ταλκ 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, as long as the information in the lead is not as complex or detailed as that in the article, you should be fine. Oh, and remember, the lead should only include the most notable and interesting info, not short sentences of every little thing (as I had the accident of doing). IJReid (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Lead expanded. I used the Good Article Abantiades latipennis as an example and adapted it.—Gaff ταλκ 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The taxon box should include mention of its subspecies/synonyms.
 Done —Gaff ταλκ 03:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
All mentions of scientific names should have these names in italics.
 Done Higher levels (above genus) are not italicized by convention.  —Gaff ταλκ 03:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 Not done: generic names in Parasites section are not all italicized. IJReid (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that! I think I have them all now. —Gaff ταλκ 14:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 The second paragraph does not contain info directly relating to M. campanulae, and the last sentence of it contains redundancies.
: In progress —Gaff ταλκ 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed?  —Gaff ταλκ 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In the first sentence of a paragraph, it is tendency (at least in most GAs) to have a mention of the full name of the animal.
: In progress —Gaff ταλκ 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I did some edits to address this.  The animal name is in at least the first sentence of each new section and in the first sentence of most of the paragraphs. It is not in the first sentence of a few paragraphs, because it seemed a bit awkward.  Is that okay?  —Gaff ταλκ 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Distribution should be totally redone, as their are problems with grammar, flow, and very little info. IJReid (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to get to this section. I did some reformatting just now to improve the flow/clean it up.  The text distribution information was spread out among few different sources, so needed to consolidate.  It is all published on the map, so this is not really "original research".  Unfortunately, there is nothing more specific about the habitat (e.g. more likely to be found in meadows or forests) in any references that I can identify.  —Gaff ταλκ 15:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Pesticides are considered human-made, so the section should be moved into Human interactions.
* done. —Gaff ταλκ 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The spelling of the species name should always be the same, unlike in mentions in the Morphology and Parasites section.
fixed. I think I found all of them... —Gaff ταλκ 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Some image captions could be rewritten (not necessary).
made some copyedits. —Gaff ταλκ 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Sections of the second Human Interactions paragraph could be rephrased/rewritten/corrected. IJReid (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Copy edits made.  I can do more, or ask for input from another editor, if needed.  —Gaff ταλκ 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
All sentences should be referenced, three at the ends of paragraphs are not.
I think you mean all paragraphs should be referenced?  It is not correct that all sentences need to be referenced, per WP:CITEBUNDLE.  I've clarified references for sentences at end of paragraphs, just for clarity.  If there are other questions on tagging, if you can label them with {{cn}} or mention them here, I can further clarify.  —Gaff ταλκ 03:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
What is M. e, mentioned in the Distribution section.
somehow this got truncated during a copy edit. fixed now.—Gaff ταλκ 03:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is it so important for illustrations of the bee to be mentioned in Morphology, it is better to instead use the references to expand the section. IJReid (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are asking for here.  The images mentioned of the genitalia, nest structure, and immature stages are not available to post to the article d/t licensing issues.  As for as the highly detailed morphologic descriptions, the text is here.  I've condensed it down to essentials, since adding all of that information will be a lot of bulk and I'm not sure it does much in terms of improving the article.  —Gaff ταλκ 03:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the mentions of when this bee was illustrated should be removed, and instead replaced with more information on morphology from their references. IJReid (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
In process.  —Gaff ταλκ 00:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The new information added has species name unitalicized.
I believe that it is best to remove the subheader Females, and instead just specify whether it is males of females for which the morphology is described. IJReid (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This is all still in process.  I'll fix up the minor details.  The source has the morphology broken down between males and females (see links if interested).  It is going to take some time for me to get it all ready, because of other commitments.  I can ping you when it is ready to save you the hassle of checking back before it is ready for review. —Gaff ταλκ 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
@IJReid: The section has now been radically expanded (to the fullest extent possible based on published resources). This is much more detail than provided for Good Articles on other low importance/obscure insects. Breaking it into sections by sex and then body segment is how it was done in the reference.  I think this might be the best way, but I'm open to suggestions.  I'm happy to hear your thoughts on how to make it work best.  It needs to be broken up in some way, or it is just a bunch of text.  In terms of illustrations for this section, the image of the bee in the infobox is very high quality and there is another high quality image at Wikimedia Commons. They are both males, but it does appear that on one of them (the one in the infobox) the S4 segment (modified stinger) is extended, but it is retracted in the other.  I added the generic anatomical map of a face, to provide some reference.  —Gaff ταλκ 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
More to come. IJReid (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now that the article is more-or-less good, I have a few final comments before I look over the entire article again.

It would be best if you linked to, or less preferably defined, some of the technical terms in the morphology section.
Done.  Please point out or mention any terms that still need clarification. I can either link, define, or rephrase.  —Gaff ταλκ 21:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Try not to put a space between a period and a reference, like in the morphology section.
fixed. I searched the entire article for "<r" to make sure.  —Gaff ταλκ 17:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The morphology section is now quite good, although to avoid copyright violation I would recommend slight simplifying (not necessary).
Done. I will keep chipping away to make this more readable.  I don't want to "dumb it down" too much, because I like the detail and it compares well to what is shown in the image.  Let me know if you have specific area of concern.  —Gaff ταλκ 21:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Query for @IJReid:: The pollination section:  there has been some criticism on the article talk page about the use of a gallery to present the pics of flowers which the bee is known to pollinate.  (As an aside, it seems obvious that the bee pollinates more than what is listed in the published references, but we can't really expand on that without a reference, or it is original resarch.)  I am fine with this as a list rather than a gallery, with maybe one photo (of the bellflower/campanula).  I can try to add something else about the types of plants/flowers that Megachilids in general pollinate. Do you have any preferences/guidance? I don't think that it is essential one way or another for the GA review, but I'm hoping you can offer some opinion.  thank you.  —Gaff ταλκ 17:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is better know, as before the images were a little much. However, I think that instead of having at the end of the last one, to place it directly behind the semicolon, as is the tendency, with any additional genus-specific refs listing after the corresponding bullet. Once this is done the article is a pass! IJReid (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I moved the reference tag back up. There just isn't much of a list of what this species pollinates. The best list for the genus that I have right now is more specific to bees in Africa [3], so not that relevant.  I did some clean up.  Hopefully this is sufficient. Thank you! —Gaff ταλκ 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Once these are completed I will give the article a final look through before I make my verdict. IJReid (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I heard about the GA review at WikiProject Insects and decided to take a look as well. The main section I saw needing work is the Human interaction section. This article is about Megachile campanulae, so we should be sure to keep the focus on that. I simplified the section down a bit to keep that focus a bit more. However, the second paragraph seems a little out of place and would be more applicable for a general pollinator decline article, but neither the content nor the references are addressing this species specifically. Basically I'm getting a tinge of original research when reading the section. I can see how someone was trying to link the topics together a bit, but it feels like we're getting into the weeds a bit with those connections. To fix this, could we find a source to replace the second paragraph essentially saying there is increasing concern about solitary bees, such as this species, and any specific information about this species relating to that? Otherwise we're getting a little coatracky.

Thank you for the help!  I'll work these concerns, but can use any assistance you can bring.  This section was added on advisement from an anoher editor who was created several GA's. This is my first attempt.  —Gaff ταλκ 19:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Otherwise, the first and third paragraph seem good overall. I'm not sure about the first sentence since it seems broad (what are we mediating exactly for this species and can we reference it?), but the rest of the two paragraphs leaves me wanting more information. "The relationship between native pollinators such as M. campanulae and humans is complex." is vague. Some additional depth could be given there. Otherwise, "Many native bee species, including M. campanulae can be managed with minimal equipment. M. campanulae and numerous other species will nest in simple bee boxes." should be explained and referenced a bit more. What exactly is used for equipment, what exactly are bee boxes, etc? Overall, more specific content and references that summarize things well that we don't want to go into too much depth here would tighten this section up.  Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I also took a quick glance at the pollination section too, namely the table. The notes section could be removed since the columns mostly aren't used. The namesake note for bellflower could be expanded in text instead a bit more (reference needed). The notes for goldenrod aren't needed since that is getting outside the focus of the article. That would allow the table to take up less space with two fewer columns and possibly be condensed in a horizontal form similar to here. [4]. I can try to help out a bit this weekend on edits, but these are the main improvements I'm seeing that would help with being a GA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
*The notes section is mostly empty because the table was just put up (yesterday?) and has not been filled out.  But, agreed, the table needs work.  I'm sure that you saw that it was recently just a list.  Since one of the critiques above was that this section needs more, this was one way that I thought it could be addressed.  —Gaff ταλκ 19:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I didn't really look into the article's history too much, but just looked at what I saw so far. I'm not sure what notes we could include specific to each plant that would be relevant specifically to this species without getting off topic. If we are adding text, it's best to put that in the body, and the cleanest way to do that would probably be to put general information about how, what, etc. this bee pollinates, with the pictures as examples. Tables aren't really meant for a lot of text, so I get the feeling expanding it further might cause more issues rather than solve them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of the gallery?—Gaff ταλκ 20:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. That looks more slick than I thought it would. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: There were two pictures of the bee, because one is female and other male.  thoughts? —Gaff ταλκ 19:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a female picture at my glance through the history, so could you post the female picture here you are thinking of? If there is a clear morphological difference we can see in a picture, then I'd be all for having both males and females. If we as readers can't see any differences between the two though, it would be a bit redundant to include both. A general rule I like to follow for pictures is that a new picture should be adding information in some fashion, especially something that cannot easily be described in text. Right now I don't see any text describing differences between males and females, so I couldn't say for sure yet whether having both sexes would be an idea worth considering here. In general though, it's tough to find good pictures depicting sexual dimorphism between species for many insects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. We don't need both.  I was confused because I thought you removed one of the bee pics, when it was actually the campanula flower.  I will change out the flower pic, because it is a better image.  Campanula is the bellflower and the namesake of the bee. Not sure if there is some elegant way to include that fine detail, other than the mention in the article lead paragraph.    —Gaff ταλκ 21:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably best to work it into the body of the paragraph somewhere as the lede should summarize what's already in the text. I can try tackling that this weekend if no one else gets around to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Gaff, did you ever find a reference on the common name being the bellflower resin bee? I searched through online journals and checked the ESA common name database and did not find any official common name [5]. I'm sure someone has described the latin name at some point, so if we can find such a source saying it's specific epithet is named after the bellflowers it can be found pollinating, we should be good in this area. For the time being, I moved this information in the lede to the naming section since it technically wasn't included in the text at all yet, and we don't present new information in the lede. I'll keep an eye out otherwise for a source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
* Here for starters Species Megachile campanulae - Bellflower Resin Bee and maybe somewhere else.. The source for the pollination on the Bellflower is from here, which is mostly a mirror of the textbook/review by Mitchell refenced in Morhpology section. —Gaff ταλκ 04:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
See also Campanula for the name of the flower.
Also, for something like precedent see "The specific name is derived from the Latin saccus, meaning "sac" or "bag", and more specifically "moneybag".[5]" from Featured article Thopha saccata. (The reference for that is a Latin dictionary.) If translating the name violates WP:NOR, I guess we have to delete it.  Seems a bit unnecessary, though. —Gaff ταλκ 04:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Need to work these into the gallery. http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Megachile+campanulae#Hosts  —Gaff ταλκ 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

has some good stuff about nests and larvae.  Anyone have access to JSTOR or other resource? Baker, J.R., E.D. Kuhn, and S.B. Bambara. 1985. Nests and immature stages of leafcutter bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 58: 290–313.  —Gaff ταλκ 23:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have pretty much full access from my university if something is online. I won't be able to do much tomorrow, but I'll check it out on Saturday and see what could be added from it, but it does appear to be a primary source, so we're a little limited in what we should be using it for. It could lead us in a useful direction though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a primary source, however it is referenced is a few of the secondary and tertiary sources we already have (such as the DiscoverLife website).  I mentioned it on the Morphology section: "Illustrations of nest structure and immature stages were published by Baker in 1985.[13]"  If we just add some quotes/paraphrases from the original text, maybe that is okay?  If there are images/diagrams, can they be modified such that we can use them?  Lots of charts, etc on other articles appear to have been made by editors here and the map that I put up is such an adaptation...  —Gaff ταλκ 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Normally we should be citing the secondary source even if it does cite a primary source. Glancing over the article, almost all of its images are line drawings that would not be easily adaptable, plus the images would be copyrighted by the journal so we can't pull them from it either. They're mostly taxonomic in nature, and I'm pretty sure I've seen actual pictures out nest structure that would be more appropriate for a general audience rather than drawings. It's definitely an interesting read, but we should be able to pull content from review articles to make sure we're not getting too technical and are focusing on what would be important for the general reader. I'll keep looking at what sources cite it though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. —Gaff ταλκ 02:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Page 252 of this document has a cladogram.  M campanulae is about the 10th species from the bottom.  It is a dissertation.  [6]

Dissertations are often iffy as sources on Wikipedia (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Any ideas on where you were thinking of going with this source? Even putting that it's a primary source aside, I'm not too sure what we'd do with a cladogram when this article is just about one species. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The cladogram idea was put forth by the reviewer doing the Good Article review. I'm not sure how it would work either, but I'm a rookie!  —Gaff ταλκ 03:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't done much checking up on who's actually proposing what yet it seems. I'll see what I can do to help once the work week is over. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I went looking over our other insect related GA's and we don't ever have cladograms (or in most regular articles for that matter). I honestly wouldn't consider a cladogram for most articles, much less for a GA nomination as cladograms change on the species level almost every time someone does a new revision. It would probably be better to stick with mentioning closely related species if sources mention them in text for some reason. I honestly wouldn't add any more in the current article about closely related species unless we would be discussing ones that are easily confused with this species, but that's already going above and behind of a standard GA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaff, how are you putting together the distribution map? It sparked my curiosity because the text and image don't quite match up right now. I also just read an article not too long ago in the Annals of the Entomological Society of America that I dug up again on solitary bees in Minnesota [7]. It's behind a paywall, but this species was found in Itasca State Park in Minnesota, so you'd at least have the Minnesota reference. Just as an FYI, bugguide.net isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia in general (as much as I hate to say it) as it is essentially a Wiki of sorts since it is largely user generated content. I'd just stick to using whatever sources you've found as references of location. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Source came from here.  I put the source reference on the metadata for the file at Commons.  It checks out with what I have read about some of the other specimen locations described in encyclopedia of life.  It is my first time making a map, so may be a bit rough around the edges, but good enough for a general reference and for this article.  Most if not all the stuff I gathered from bugguide was imported from encyclopedia of life or ITIS, so if it is essential to update those references, I can do it.  If not, I have other projects I am working on and would prefer to leave as-is for now. —Gaff ταλκ 04:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, just checking mainly since I suspected you were pulling for EoL, etc. but wasn't sure. I think we should be fine with this section for now. Overall, it looks like you've got things addressed for the GA review, and I'll be pretty content with the article myself once I can find a reference on the common name. Gotta say if that's my only concern we're dealing with a good (and hopefully good) article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The content on taxonomy, and life cycle are of good length and readability. However, two sections need attention.
Way too much detail in Morphology and identification. This is written like an entomology text or journal article, as if written for specialists (in fact it's quite clear that this page was basically paraphrased line by line). The flagrant undefined use of terms like F1 and T2, as well as the shear amount of text, will discourage most readers from comprehending any key traits, and is of interest to only a miniscule proportion of readers. I know that some editors like going into extreme morphological detail but that alone is not a good reason to do so.  See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable for more.
, excessive use of photographs of pollination. Per WP:Gallery and Consideration of image download size, image galleries should not needlessly be added to articles and can slow down load speeds: not much information is really gained from the gallery aside from "pretty pictures". It would be better to write out the list of plants as prose, or perhaps a concise table or list, with select images.--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Reply:  I'll go ahead and reply to comments from @Animalparty:, since this has been "my" project.  I'm guessing that you did not read the GA review currently underway, because your comments about the morphology section are more or less redundant and in the process of being addressed.  The expansion happened only a couple days ago and I'm working to clean it up.  Yes: it is exquisitely detailed and there is a lot of jargon.  It needs polishing.  If you want to help with that, feel free, either on the article or here: User:Gaff/Morphology draft.  The pollination list started as a list, then a list with one photo (a nice pic of the bellflower (campanula) and a comment saying it was the "namesake").  That was criticized as "needing expansion" and as WP:OR because  I used the word namesake. Then I made a table, which was criticized with the suggestion that it be a gallery, so I did that.  I liked the list best, with one photo, so will go back to that.  The section really cannot be expanded more, unless somebody else has a reference that I have missed.  —Gaff ταλκ 03:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with accuracy of the content.  But, much of it belongs in a more generic article about the whole of the genus Megachile  GeeBee60 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Megachile campanulae. 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/20150906101902/http://cumuseum.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/The%20Bees%20of%20Colorado.pdf to http://cumuseum.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/The%20Bees%20of%20Colorado.pdf
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) 16:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The article currently reads: "They are considered mason bees, which is a common descriptor of bees in several families, including Megachilidae"
I have generally heard this term (mason bees) in relation to Osmia (Megachilidae). I did not know that the term applied either to Megachile campanulae nor to bees in other families. Muniche (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)