Talk:Bogong moth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 22:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this. First, why is there no taxonomy section? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk - thank you so much for reviewing this article. I apologize for the lateness in responding. I have changed the Etymology section into a Taxonomy section, and added what information I could find on the subject to the article - I could only find information from one source. Jerryshen (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to base the structure of this article on that of a similar one that has been promoted previously, such as the butterfly Chrysiridia rhipheus. For another promoted insect, see Aleeta curvicosta.

I have written this article according to the suggested article format in this link for articles under Project Lepidoptera. Jerryshen (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a guideline, it is always best to look at what has been accepted by reviewers in the past. Anyhow, it would seem you need a overarching "behavior and ecology" section to group the various sections that are about this. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I have changed the structure of the article accordingly. I have removed the Geographic range and Food resources sections and placed their contents under a Distribution and habitat section. I have created a Behaviour section and placed the Migration, Social Behavior, and Diapause sections underneath that heading. I have created an Ecology section and placed the Enemies and Biovector of Arsenic sections underneath it. I have also moved the order of the sections to match those of nominated butterfly articles, such as Phengaris rebeli and Chrysiridia rhipheus. --Jerryshen (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing this article doesn't have which all those other examples do is a description/appearance section. Now you lump in physical description with behavioural info on their life cycles. This should be split.
You are inconsistent in how you present variopus writers mentioned in the taxonomy section. Some get nationality and occupation, some get nothing.
You should also give dates for the various events mentioned under taxonomy. Now you do'nt even mention the year it was described.
"word bugung, describing the color of the moth" This doesn't help the reader much if you don't tell what the word means.
"collected the 'boo.gong fly.'" Why is there punctuation in the name? And the last quotation mark should not come after the full stop.
When and why was it moved to another genus than the one it was first placed in? And what's the story about the synonym in the taxobox? Also, the original name should be in that synonym list too.
There are some unused images that could be nice to add. This one shows some kind of parasites[1], and this one[2] shows an individual in side view with folded wings, which isn't shown otherwise.

I have edited the taxonomy section to address your points. 'boo.gong' is how the word is presented in the cited website as a translation. I cannot find any information about its movement from one genus to another, nor anything about Euxoa infusa. That was on the Wikipedia page before I began editing it - I have removed it. I have added Noctua infusa and Agrotis spina to the synonym list. For the parasite image, I did not add that because I was not sure what kind of parasites those actually were (and the image uploader is not sure either), and so could not accurately describe them in the image and in the Parasites section. Would it be a good idea to add it? For now I have made these changes, and I will address the other points tomorrow.Jerryshen (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The animals on its antennae are undoubtedly parasites, so as long as you don't identify them further, it would be fine. It will also be a nice image to add because it is a close up of the head (which we don't have otherwise), and someone else might see it here and identify them further. FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I have added that image along with the other image that you suggested. I have also moved all of the description from the Life cycle section into a Description section.Jerryshen (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the lifecycle sections are now so short, it would be better to merge them into one section, as is the case in for example Chrysiridia rhipheus, which is the highest promoted article about a butterfly here. Also because very short sections are discouraged.[3]
In most other articles, the physical features of the adult are described first.
You should add conversions to all measurements.
No description of the limbs, proboscis, eyes, and other features?
Words that are linked in the intro should also be linked at their first occurence in the article body.
The intro is only supposed to e a summary of the article body, so it does not need citations, and should not have any unique info.
"self-mulching soils" What does this mean? You could explain in parenthesis
"Both regions contain populations of nonmigratory and migratory moths" Both of this species?
You could also explain multivoltine and aestivation.
Why is the "Food resources" section in distribution and not udner behavior?
You mix UK and US English, you have both "behaviour" and "meters", for example. It should be consistent throughout.
Some of the external links seem like they could be used as sources instead.

I have addressed your comments - I have merged the Life cycle sections into one whole section, moved the physical description of the adult first, added conversions, linked words in the intro in the article body, explained self-mulching, specified the regions statement, consistently made everything UK English.

For the other points:

I could find no information about the limbs, proboscis, eyes, and other features beyond what has been mentioned.

The intro does not include any unique information, and Chrysiridia rhipheus has citations in the intro as well.

Multivoltine is explained by the "and so" statement directly after it. I have explained aestivation in paragraphs.

Food resources influence the migration of the bogong moth, as they migrate and aestivate due to lack of food resources during the summer. Do you think that it would fit better under the Behaviour section below the Migration subsection?

That's where I'd expect to find such information at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added any external links from my own edits - I am unsure what to do with them and have not used them before; should I change them into references?Jerryshen (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If some external links here don't add anything, they can be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You show images of male and female specimens. Are there visible differences?

There are no visible differences - I just used the same image gallery placed there previously. Should I just leave the dorsal/ventral view of one of the sexes?

There are still measurements needing conversion, such as "can travel up 600 miles" and "per square metre". You should also be consistent in whether you list metric or imperial units first.
It is best not to force pixel size for image thumbnails, as has for example been done with the capeweed image.
On the other hand, vertically long images can have the "upright" parameter added to make them smaller.
"congregations form to feast on bogong moths as they traveled" Change in tense for some reason.
How do fish prey on them? If they fall in water?

The source I used provides no information on how this occurs, and the original source from that source is just a list of stomach contents of caught trout in New South Wales.

"was seen outside of one of the aestivation sites of the bogong moth" Since you devote a good deal of text to this, you could state the location?

The source just mentions the site as just one of many sites and does not provide an exact location.

"It is an icon of Australian wildlife" Only stated in intro.

I have removed the external links, added/changed the conversions, changed the pixel sizes to be either default or have the "upright" parameter, changed the tense of that sentence, and added a statement about the icon of Australian wildlife in the Food source subsection of the Interactions with humans section.Jerryshen (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite good to me now, so I'll pass it. I feared you had disappeared when i didn't hear from you for a while, so its nice you returned to finish the job. FunkMonk (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much FunkMonk! I apologize for that; in the future I'll make sure to nominate when I am for sure available to respond and edit at the time of nomination. Jerryshen (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to see you around! FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]