Talk:Small heath (butterfly)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 10:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 10:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe offer a quick explanation of what "lekking" means in the lead.

• "The small heath" and "the C. pamphilus are used interchangeably throughout the article. While this is not wrong, it would be nice if you stuck to one of the terms, preferrably the common name ("small heath").

• Grammatical error: "Four instar" instead of "fourth instar" in the first sentence under the "Larvae" subsection.

• Is "Enemies" really the best term? Perhaps "Parasitism" and some of the other sections could be put under a new "ecology" section? A lot of the sections in the article are really short so I wonder if all of them need to be their own full sections or if some could be relegated to being subsections.

• What sources are used for the list of subspecies? Only one of the subspecies is sourced.

• I noticed that the last sentence uses Wikipedia itself as a source twice, please replace this with reliable sources from outside of Wikipedia.

• The lead states that other members of the genus Coenonympha prefer habitats that are not as dry, maybe examplify some of these habitats.

• Other butterfly GA articles has a single "Distribution and habitat" section rather than separate "Geographic spread" and "Habitat" ones (examples: Abantiades latipennis, Lulworth skipper).

• Perhaps you should explain what the term "instar" means under "Life cycle".

• "Female small heath butterflies have a wingspan of 37 mm and tend to be larger than males that have a wingspan of 33 mm." (from the "adult" subsection), maybe indicate that the wingspan of 33 mm is the general wingspan of all males (the current wording might make it seem a bit unspecific). Perhaps "...larger than males, which have a wingspan of 33 mm"?

• The "status in the Netherlands" subsection states that "One study shows that the small heath has adapted well to climate change and will continue to survive successfully due to its capability to adapt biologically to altered environments" what is the nature of this capability? How is this butterfly different from other species in this regard?

• Is there any reason why it is advantageous for males to defend their territory in low-temperature conditions but not in high temperature conditions?

• There are a couple of words here and there that you could wikilink;
  • "nectar" in the lead
  • "England" and "Wales" under the Geographic range section
  • Maybe the various types of habitats listed under "Habitat"
  • "Oviposition" in the Oviposition subsection
  • "Pupae" in the Pupae subsection

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig can't find anything above "violation unlikely".
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	As far as I can see, though I only have limited knowledge of this particular butterfly. Awaiting more work on the "Taxonomy" section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Before going further with this review, note that the butterfly articles that have just been mass nominated were part of some kind of student project, and that some of the students didn't return to respond to the reviews. So it's probably good to ping the nominator, J.j.lee, and then wait to see if they show up before continuing the review. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, yeah. Looking at the contributions of the nominator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nicholas_Fry) it appears you are right and that he has not been on Wikipedia since December. What happens if the nominator does not show up? Do I fail the article, put it on hold? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was lucky enough that the nominator of Bogong moth returned after a while, but the nominator of Indian mealmoth never returned, so the nomination was failed after a while. You can wait as long as you want, perhaps send an email to the nominator, because they are not Wikipedia regulars and probably don't check their talk pages much. But if no one responds, you can fail it after whatever amount of time you like. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'll wait and see if they return and if they don't I'll send an email. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review! I have definitely been keeping track of my articles and will address your comments as soon as possible. J.j.lee (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input! I added a brief description of lekking in the lead, replaced C. pamphilus with the common name small heath, and addressed the small typo. I wasn't sure how to best incorporate a new "ecology" section and instead created a "threats" section and made two short sections into its subsections. Regarding your comment on the subspecies sources, I did not write that section, but I moved the citation to the beginning of the section so hopefully it is now clearer. I also removed the Wikipedia citations. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions! J.j.lee (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well done! I will read through the article thoroughly and compare it to other butterfly articles that have reached GA status to see if there are any specific structural changes that should be made or information that would be missing.Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have done this now. There is a new (should also be the final) set of comments. I still feel that the article is split into an overly large number of sections and subsections but it is not really a large problem as I noticed some other GA-butterfly articles (such as Helicoverpa zea and Phengaris rebeli) were similar in this aspect. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that I'm here anyway, I should note that it needs a taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I made some changes, and hopefully my edits adequately address your comments. I began a taxonomy section, but I have very little knowledge of and experience with taxonomy. I will add as much relevant information as possible soon, but for now, I made the similar species and subspecies into subsections under this new section. J.j.lee (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You missed one of the comments (examplifying some of the habitats of the other species of the genus, since the lead specifically states that this species differs from the others in its choice of habitat). Other than that this is beginning to look good enough. The taxonomy section needs some more work but it does not have to be hugely extensive. Looking at other butterfly GA:s (Abantiades latipennis, Lulworth skipper) you will really only need some brief information on when it was named, by whom and potentially where it was first found as well as repeating its familial, subfamilial etc. classification (with sources). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I added more information to the taxonomy section. Hopefully it's enough, since I wasn't really able to find other clearly-stated/cited information. I must have missed your comment about the habitats so I added a few examples and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.j.lee (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well done! You made a mistake on the nationality and profession of Linnaeus (Swedish botanist/zoologist, not British entomologist) which I have fixed. The taxonomy section is about as extensive as the one in the other GA butterfly article Lulworth skipper. It would be nice to have some explanation of what the scientific name means, but I can understand that this is difficult to find and going by the other articles this does not appear to be strictly necessary. Maybe you could just quickly note that it is classified within the genus Coenonympha ("one of X amount of species in the genus Coenonympha) and what tribe and family it is placed in (I know this is in the infobox, but having it sourced in the taxonomy section is a plus). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, careless mistake. Thank you for catching that. I expanded the taxonomy section as you suggested. My only slight concern is that number of species in the Coenonympha genus. I couldn't find a specific count so I simply counted the species listed in one of my sources. J.j.lee (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ichthyovenator, not sure if you saw my comment above, but hoping this one gets to you! J.j.lee (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your previous message. I think the taxonomy section looks good now, as does the article as a whole. I thus decided to pass it, congratulations on producing a good article! Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! J.j.lee (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)