Talk:Forest tent caterpillar moth

Forest tent caterpillar moth was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 11, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Behavior

I added some information on the grouping behavior of Forest tent caterpillars for a Behavioral Ecology course. I also added some information and sources regarding mating behavior and oviposition. --Aliciacanas (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Great job on the addition! There is a lot of good, relevant information on caterpillar grouping behavior and adult mating behavior. Content-wise, I think the addition was very strong. I mostly fixed small grammatical errors here and there. Some of your sentences are really long, and I think your paragraphs will be clearer if you end up dividing the long sentences into smaller ones. I went ahead and made two large sections: Grouping and Mating. I think it will help with structuring the article more than clumping both types of behavior under a behavior section. Another thing to think about it adding links to other articles. For example, oviposition, ontogenetic change, and instars are all words you can link to other articles to increase clarity. One thing to keep in mind would be to look over the information that was in the article before your addition and make sure that the article as a whole flows together well.

Also, I didn't understand what you were trying to say in the following sentence:

This is very important for M. distria caterpillars, which rely on fast growth in spite of low environmental temperatures to benefit from the high food quality and the smaller predation risk in the Spring.

All in all, you made a very good addition to this article! Thatgirlnamedsofa (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)thatgirlnamedsofa[reply]

Overall, this was a great article! It was very clear and well-written. There’s only a few areas I would consider changing/touching up. For example, there’s one section where you cite “(Fullard & Napoleone 2001)” but I would recommend just using a wikipedia ref tag to keep things homogeneous and not too distracting. I would also hyperlink things like the Dilution effect and Selfish Herd Effect. Jabes808 (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great! I made a few grammatical changes and added a few wikilinks. I think that the article could use a little more description about the actual moth instead of just the caterpillar. Additionally, the intro blurb needs some sort of citation. Ashleynlin (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the article looks good. Like the above poster, I fixed some awkward wording, grammatical and spelling inconsistencies, and added some wikilinks. I also think you may use a little bit too specialized of a vocabulary (eclose, instars, etc.) whose meaning should be explained. Solon5g93 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aliciacanas,

I do not know if my suggestions will interest you, but "Consistent individual differences in the foraging behavior of forest tent caterpillars (Malacosoma disstria)" by L. Nemiroff has promising information to increase the relatively small foraging section and "Host locating behaviour of Leschenaultia exul and Patelloa pachypyga: two tachinid parasitoids of the forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria" might be worthy of skimming for interesting information on parasitization of the caterpillars. Amruthapk (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forest Tent Caterpillar Moth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 07:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many missing citations, please fix this before renominating. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, according to the GA reviewer, needed many more citations. In order to elevate this article to GA status, I went through the Description and Biology, making sure that I provided all necessary points with a citation. Furthermore, I fixed the incorrect presentation of the species in the opening line, changing each capital letter following the first word to a lower case letter. I improved the quality of the lead, revising sentences for concision and accuracy. I believe that readers will be able to find the article more accessible following such changes. I removed an uncited phrase (“en masse”) and replaced the word with a synonymous term that informs the reader of this species’ group migration. I grouped several of her sections under a new header, Behavior, in order to clarify the article’s structure of the reader.--Gschalet (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]