Talk:Bay checkerspot butterfly

Bay checkerspot butterfly was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 24, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Lepidoptera High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths 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.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

this is a subspecies, but described in intro as a species
capitalisation of this and the other subspecies is erratic, eg Checkerspot is capped and lower cased in the first sentence, Island spp has Island capped and checkerspot lc, bay and Bay under appearance
intro is totally inadequate, should summarise article in a few paras WP:INTRO
headings are a mess -why is evolution part of description
Does this species really occur in the Channel Islands - I've never heard of it in Europe

Fixed to Channel Islands of California. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

evolution did butterflies originate in the Americas? ambiguous
units not given with metric conversions
a lot of red-links, understandable for the subspecies, which I wouldn't link anyway, but have you checked whether the food plants have articles under the scientific names?
sustinence?
some paras unreffed
needs a copy edit, spelling and grammar errors
references should not also be external links, of which there are too many anyway. If they are sources, put them as references, if not, remove unless they genuinely add to the article

This is just what I picked up on a first read through. It needs a good deal of work to get it to GA Jimfbleak (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Ridge section

I copy-edited this section and made several improvements but found two problems I couldn't fix.

1. Someone knowledgeable about the content needs to look at this sentence: "Ehrlich and his colleagues accumulated a mass of data about the fluctuations of the Bay checkerspot populations at Jasper Ridge than probably any other invertebrate known." The "than" has no "more" or "greater" or any such word to go with it. What comparison does the writer intend? Did E and his colleagues accumulate more data about the fluctuations, etc., than they accumulated about the fluctuations of any other invertebrate species at Jasper Ridge? Did they accumulate more data about the fluctuations, etc., than anyone had ever accumulated about any aspect of another invertebrate? And so on.

2. Later in that first paragraph, where does the quote end?

Other parts of the article need editing, too.

Cognita (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic Revision of subspecies bayensis

The statement is made in the introducton that "Recently, two authors have advocated a reclassification for this subspecies of the checkerspot common to western North America, Euphydryas editha. The classification, to Euphydryas editha editha, is for reasons of historical precedence;[2] however, this has not been accepted by the scientific community." There are several problems with this statement.

First, the footnote reference link is no longer valid and I have been unable to find the cited source elsewhere. Secondly, the reason cited for the change (making bayensis a synonym of the typical subspecies editha) is somewhat disingenuous. The authors of the original paper (which is not cited) built a case of identity, that is, the subspecies originally described by Sternitzky in 1937 (bayensis) was not distinct from the original (sub)species described and named by Boisduval (editha) in 1852 and therefore the former should be regarded as a synonym of the latter. This is not just "historical precedence," but valid systematic AND taxonomic revision.

Further, the flat statement that this revision has not been accepted by the "scientific community" is dead wrong. First, the "scientific community" is not a solid block, but is composed of individuals, some of whom have indeed accepted the revision (see Jonathan P. Pelham's Catalogue of the Butterflies of the United States and Canada which lists bayensis as a synonym of editha) and some of whom have not.

Those who have not may well be reluctant to do so as it would play hob with the protected status of bayensis as one can easily see. If the protected subspecies does not really exist other than as a portion of a much larger and clearly not endangered subspecies, what happens to the protection under the FSA? Glacierman (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the source link is dead, I think this could be better organized by having a heading specifically for classification and its significance. liu.emily (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bay checkerspot butterfly. 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:

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) 03:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions/Changes

Hi1 I enjoyed reading this page about the butterfly a lot! I made some organizational changes - specifically making Life cycle and Diet their own headings. I felt that these sections were big enough topics to be on their own. If disliked, please edit as you wish! Jenniferra (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]