Talk:Apis dorsata

message: Add this map to the article .
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.100.6 (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Add map

message: This page seems incredibly well-researched and thorough, so great job! The main changes I made were some edits for grammar throughout the page. I did notice that in a few places, there were sentences that had no citations (particularly in the beginning of the "Nests" section, "Distribution and Habitat," and "Genetic Relatedness"). Additionally, I think the "Colony Cycle" section can be edited a bit for clarity. The paragraph begins with a sentence outlining the two major methods of reproductive swarming, then abruptly switches to talking about non-reproductive methods of colony initiation. I think a better transition could be used here, or perhaps this can be made into sub-heading. Finally (and perhaps this is stylistic or nit-picky), I feel like the sentence in the overview paragraph beginning, "The subspecies with the largest individuals..." is a bit cumbersome and specific for an overview. Perhaps it can be changed to something along the lines of "Several subspecies of A. dorsata have been identified with an average worker length of 17-20 mm; the largest of these subspecies is the Himalayan cliff honey bee, A. d. laboriosa." Otherwise, I think this is really well done! (Mpmaz (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions I

message: I think this had a lot of information in it and seemed to cover a lot of different types of material. I would possibly move the Nests section to be under Distribution and Habitat since nests can be thought of as a habitat. Also description of what the bee looks like, especially any differences between the drones and the queens. The entire first section needs some kind of citation since it just seems to be floating there with no way to find out where the information came from. Also, I would edit a couple of the names in the Taxonomy and Phylogeny section to be italicized since these are species names. Overall, I thought it was well done article. 
Tefrancis (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review I

message: You clearly did a ton of research and I think this article is going to end up being a really good one! The use of links to other wiki pages is great, and will help give context to the comparisons you make between A. dorsata and closely related species. There are a few times where you make reference to "differences" between particular behaviors, such as in the Nests sections when you start by saying they differ significantly from other bees. I think that if you say something like this, you have to explain the differences more by saying something like "while most bees do _____, A. dorsata does______", or else mentioning a difference doesn't provide any information. I'm not sure if this applies to your bee species, but chemical communication plays a central role in most of the nest dynamics in the one I am researching. If chemicals are also important for A. dorsata, I would suggest focusing future research on this and it would add great information to many of the behavior sections. Lastly, I did some small text edits to help with clarity or to cut out redundancy. You should go back and edit the Worker Policing section, as I couldn't understand most of the information you presented there. Definitely a good first draft, and the volume of information you present is huge. Good luck the rest of the way!
Melliott132 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions II 

message: Great job on this article so far! It should possibly be a little longer in order to reach good article status, but the sections are well written and interesting. The biggest change I made was to move pictures around. I switched the main picture to a picture with only one bee instead of a swarm, and moved the original picture to the colony cycle section. I then spaced the other pictures throughout the article and tried to put them with relevant information to make the article as visually appealing as possible. I changed the ‘description and identification’ section to just ‘description’ since there is no information about identifying the bee. Future changes should focus on adding morphology of this bee. As for smaller changes, I made some edits to make sentences flow better, I took out links to pages that don’t exist, and I added a few more links to other pages. Good work so far! I was especially impressed with the colony cycle, distribution and habitat, and nest sections. HBrodke (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review II

message: I corrected some errors of inappropriate inter-Wiki link usage in the first paragraph, such as the hyperlinks included for some of the countries the species is found in. I also corrected some errors of capitalization, spelling, and basic grammar. For instance, I found that the article included many instances in which the species name was also capitalized incorrectly in addition to the genus name. Otherwise, I think the article is well written in terms of the organization and content! Perhaps the author could focus on broader topics for the subheadings instead of some of the very narrow and/or extensively-named ones there are currently such as “nest recognition and fidelity”. In addition, although a large number of sources were referenced in the end citations, I thought the article could be further improved with more in-text citations throughout. Missmanasa (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review III

message: This article was well written and well organized. Some points that might be important to address. What is meant by this sentence “The limits of their ranges in Indochina and the possible distinctness of the geographically distant Philippines population require more study”? Is unclear and might benefit from rewording. The sentence “It would seem that worker policing makes mistakes often in correctly removing the drone brood since the drone brood are interspersed with worker brood, but every male raised comes from a queen-laid egg (not a worker-laid egg)” would benefit from a similar rewording. 
Additionally, I went through to fix some tenses and make some things a little clearer. I also removed unnecessary fluff words like “much” and “very” from places where the context was clear (by the wikipedia style guide). I also added a link to your reference the “Wave” (as performed in an audience) which I thought was a great analogy but out of place without context in a scientific article.
On the whole – great job!Narayanan anagha (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review IV 

message: Unlike the majority of the people who wrote before me, I will not launch into unnecessary idolatry of whoever wrote this article. I think this is a fairly sloppy article and here are a bunch of reasons.
1. The sentence "In the Philippines, which used to have one of the greatest populations of Apis dorsata, the populations have now become relatively rare due to deforestation and people's "mindsets" towards the bees." is followed by the tag "[further explanation needed]". I don't think I need to say more. "people's "mindsets"" does not make any sense to me.
2. "Colonies decline during the rainy and summer seasons because of the instability of foraging sources due to climate change."
Should we say "foraging sources due to recent climate change"?
3. " In general, this bee population experiences extreme multiple matings."
"Extreme multiple matings"? What does that even mean?
4. "It would seem that worker policing makes mistakes often in correctly removing the drone brood since the drone brood are interspersed with worker brood, but every male raised comes from a queen-laid egg (not a worker-laid egg). This shows us that worker policing does indeed work within populations of these bees. In these instances, worker policing occurs through “egg-eating” or oophagy, but in the case of these bees, worker policing is directed at workers with ovaries since oophagy is hard to achieve, as worker-laid and queen-laid eggs are nearly identical in shape and size."
This is not clearly explained.
5. "Since it has been observed that rarely any queen-daughter relationships exist within aggregations, the “budding” hypothesis of colony initiation rarely occurs."
This is unclear. Rewrite as necessary.
6. "These bees usually return to their natal nests because this behavior results in higher fitness."
What's the meaning of this?
7. "If workers and queens do not return to the same colony, they have a high chance of getting killed because the other colony views them as potential robbers or carriers of disease".
What's the source that says they can detect (potential) diseases?
8. "According to a survey, about 96 beekeepers are in the area."
What's the year for the survey?
ICE77 (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy article