Talk:Codling moth

Codling moth has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 25, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Agriculture Mid‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lepidoptera Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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): Uhm.s. Peer reviewers: Felderp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

The obvious problem with the article is the intense focus on agriculture, leaving minimal coverage of other areas like morphology, behavior, evolution etc. With such a narrow focus it can achive no more than a high start or very low B-class rating on the quality scale. Note that I've reassessed it as of high importance to lepidoptera - the fact it is very common, well known, and of high economic importance should justify this rating. Richard001 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of pheromone trap with caught individuals

Hi page editors,

I do not know much about the subject, but I just uploaded two photos of Commons, which may be of relevance to this article.

--Slaunger (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added. See my note under Talk:Insect trap.--Brambleshire (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One category that is missing is the life cycle of this moth, which could help explain the various stages of their lives and interactions with the environment. Another broad topic that is missing is information about mating systems and methods, because this article talks about mating disruption as a form of control, but having more information about mating patterns would help give more context. Another broad topic to include is their hierarchical structure because that could help provide context about how they interact in a group setting and how they establish and maintain power. This page shows it as being low importance and I disagree because it seems like a bog concern to humans trying to control them. However I agree that this article quality is Start-class and needs to be improved by including more broad information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RV2014 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edits

Hi! I will be editing this page for the next two weeks or so. I have been assigned to do research on the Codling moth and improve the Wikipedia page, as part of my Behavioral Ecology class at Washington University in St. Louis. It would be greatly appreciated if nothing is deleted while I am making edits. Thank you! Uhm.s 09:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edits

Hi! I thought this article was very comprehensive and covered a broad range of topics. I made a few very minor edits, including deleting extraneous phrases and adding a couple of hyperlinks throughout the article. Other than that, I didn’t see anything else that I thought needed to be edited; I thought that this post was really well done and had a ton of important information! Mlopez2121 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edits 2

Hey there! I mostly made grammar edits and deleted redundant information, over explanation, etc. Let me know if you want to discuss the changes I made further- I think all of the information has been retained, just made more succinct.

Emilykh26 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer edits 3

I edited grammar and sentence structure in the lead section and habitat subheading. I captioned a photo under the morphology heading as “Cydia pomonella moth”. I also added a picture of the caterpillar stage under the life history section. I added a primary source article citation to the section about pheromones. This article was the original paper to determine the structure of the Codling moth pheromone. Lastly, I added a paragraph under the biological control section about a wasp parasite of the codling moth that could be used to control the pest. I added a citation from a journal about this topic. Felderp (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Work needed for GA

The GA review, when it starts, will obviously bring up a few issues, so you might want to get going with the obvious ones. Here are some suggestions:

The lead is way too short and requires a complete rewrite.
make use of the {{convert}} template throughout.
There’s an empty section.
Attend to disambiguation.
One of the sources shows a C1 error.

I don’t know whether it’s necessary for GA that sources identify page numbers. I suspect it is. You might want to read the GA criteria. If yes, that’s quite a bit of work for someone. Shortened footnotes is a suitable referencing system to deal with that.

I Hoe this is useful. Schwede 66 14:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I spend time on this, are you still around on this one? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.	~~Need to regroup reproduction sections with life history.~~
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.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.	This is a thorough and well-organized student project on an important insect.