Talk:Gynaephora groenlandica

Gynaephora groenlandica 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).

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): LucasKat. Peer reviewers: Krecto176.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to G. groenlandica Page - Behavioral Ecology Assignment

Hello! I am a student editing this page as part of a behavioral ecology assignment at Washington University in St. Louis. Thus far, I have added the following sections: Geographic Range, Habitat, Home Range and Territoriality, Food Resources, Life History, Enemies, Genetics, Physiology, and Conservation, as well as their respective subsections. I also added to the introduction section and moved some previously-added information to the "Enemies: Parasitoids" and "Physiology: Diapause" sections. I welcome any feedback/suggestions on what I have posted thus far! LucasKatherine (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer edits- Behavioral Ecology Hi! I was really impressed by this page. It is cited thoroughly and includes a lot of very detailed information. I am especially impressed by the lead section because it succinctly summarizes the most interesting facts about this species, including its long lifespan and extremely cold habitats. I made no major edits. I did find a hyperlinked word (hypometabolism) that was linked to a page that doesn't exist, so I removed that. Overall really awesome article. KmarcusBC (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!Thought this article could definitely be ready for Good Article status. Minor notes: explain what “hibernacula” are (even though it is linked) and add some more photos if possible. Maybe make further distinctions within the life cycle area. Engelde (talk) 04:58, 1 Dec 2017 (UTC)

Edits from Behavioral Ecology student

Hi! This page has been greatly improved with the addition of many sections. I made a few changes to make it even better. First, I added citations to the lead section because they were originally absent. Second, I changed a few long, run-on sentences to make reading easier. Third, I found another source and added to the "Predators" section to describe the specifics of the male and female bat-defense response in this species. Finally, I noted that the Genetics section needs citations. Thanks! The Thermoregulation section was quite lengthy so I divided it into 3 subsections titled "basking," "metabolism," and "oxygen consumption." This allows for a much easier read since the text is divided.

Peer Review Edit for Behavioral Ecology class

Overall, the article was really good! I enjoyed the wide variety of topics, especially in the physiology section. However, there are several ways to improve this article. I added some hyperlinks in the sections in which there were very few or no hyperlinks, such as in the Life history section or the Physiology section. I added them for words that I did not think an average reader on Wiki would immediately recognize and know the meaning (e.g. Alexandra Fiord, Ellesmere Island, hibernacula, etc.). In terms of capitalization, the standard way of writing section headings is in sentence case. I edited the section and subsection headings to reflect these guidelines. My other suggestions for how to improve this article also include editing and fixing the Wiki code for 3 parts marked in red on the online article (hypometabolism and 2 input date errors in the References section). Also, the lead section is good in that it covers a wide breadth of information, but it may be too detailed in covering the functions of the hibernacula (seems to fit better in a lower section, such as the Diapause subsection). For future edits, it may also be useful to break down the life cycle section into its components (egg, pupa, larva, adult) so that the life cycle stages are clearer. Lastly, I made small structure and grammatical edits (such as missed commas, italicization, and incorrect subject-verb agreement). Overall, a good article but there is always room for improvement! Krecto176 (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is for some class I'd note the references need attention as well. For example instead of First Records of the Arctic Moth Gynaephora groenlandica (Wocke) South of the Arctic Circle: A New Alpine Subspecies the |title= for one ref reads WU Libraries: Proxy Server Login. If you're going to use the citation templates, then it's generally preferable to make use of the parameters for doi or jstor id, e.g., |jstor=23594655 (see Help:Citation Style 1). Umimmak (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also seeing reference names like <ref name=":7" />. As per WP:REFNAME "Names MUST NOT be purely numeric; they should have semantic value so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors." Umimmak (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gynaephora groenlandica. 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/20120422191654/http://dsc.discovery.com/show-news/arctic-caterpillar-sleeps-its-life-away-completely-frozen.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/show-news/arctic-caterpillar-sleeps-its-life-away-completely-frozen.html

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) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I spend time on this, are you still around on this one? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 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.	I've tidied up a little.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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 well-written student project on an extraordinary insect.