Talk:Chloridea virescens

Chloridea virescens was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 7, 2018). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liu.emily. Peer reviewers: J.j.lee, Pranita.kaginele.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi! I looked over your article and it looks great. It was very interesting to read about your moth. I proofread your article and made changes in terms of grammar, structure, citations, etc. Hopefully it’ll read more smoothly, and I also added hyperlinks to some terms for clarity. I also changed the formatting of your subsections, which was a minor detail. One thing I noticed is that a lot of your information in the Egg section could fall under a new subsection for Oviposition, under Parental Care (which is in the outline we were given). So one suggestion I have is that you could split up the Egg section and find more information on oviposition habits, if possible. Overall, great job! J.j.lee (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and added some more links to uncommon terms, such as species of plants. I also changed the wording or added some punctuation of some sentences throughout your article for clarity and accuracy. I noticed you are missing a citation for the last part of your overview. Also, in your "Life cycle" section, it could be possible to create a subsection for senescence as I noticed you have a lot of relevant information throughout the section already. In the "Pheromones" section, could you possibly clarify what you mean by an antennectomized female? Finally, I think some more technical concepts in “Irradiation” and “Genetic engineering” could be clarified. For example, is the frequency of the resistant allele as high as 0.001 percent of the population? Could you clarify what an F1 female is for readers who may not know? Overall, great job! J.j.lee (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over your article and I thought you did a great job. As I was reading the article I felt your ideas flowed seamlessly and there was more than enough information present. I made some grammatical fixes in different places of the article. I also removed the external link subsection it is because it was already present in the References section. WAdekunle (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Ecology WikiProject Peer Review

Hello! Great article! I found it to be very informative. I made a couple of slight grammatical errors throughout the article, and removed various links that did not work. I also changed some sentence structure and kept the verb tense consistent throughout each section. I added links to various terms throughout the article. I suggest maybe adding a separate Oviposition section since it is mentioned in the Egg life cycle section, a Pheromone section since it is mentioned in the Sampling section, and a Mimicry section if there is more information available on the corn ear worm moth. Overall, great work! Pranita.kaginele (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heliothis virescens. 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/20110720053933/http://forensicentomology.tamu.edu/pdf/JFS05014.pdf to http://forensicentomology.tamu.edu/pdf/JFS05014.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) 17:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heliothis virescens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am taking a look and making some straightforward copyedits as I go. I'll jot questions/issues below:

It needs a Taxonomy section as first section, including such information as when it was described and by whom, what its name means, what it is related to, common name and alternative common names.

It needs a Description section describing what it looks like and how it can be distinguished from related or similar-looking species. I'd make the life cycle material a subsection of this, moving the adult material to the top.

Try and avoid one-sentence paragraphs. Combine or expand if possible.

The lead is a summary of important points of the article, so a brief description of the adult's appearance should be there.

Earwig's copyvio clear

Anyway, I'll go into more detail if I see some activity. Cheers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nothing's happening here so it's a fail for the time being. If anyone is keen to do the above and re-nominate, ping me and I will be happy to take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]