Talk:Helicoverpa assulta

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. Peer reviewers: CR.Tracy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edits

Hello, I will be updating the page with major edits to include more information about mating behavior, and food resources. Sarahxyang (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helicoverpa assulta. 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/20160304070215/http://www.cotton.sd.cn/htm/yjjz/pdf/yjjz_03_05.pdf to http://www.cotton.sd.cn/htm/yjjz/pdf/yjjz_03_05.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) 09:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review

Overall, I thought the article had a nice amount of relevant information. I think there were a few instances where a topic should have been more researched or more specifically mentioned in the article. For example, in the geographic range section, there is mention that environmental conditions improve fecundity. I think it would be interesting to expand on how the temperature and locality of the environment specifically has an effect on fecundity. Likewise, in the life cycle section describing larvae, it says that the success of the moth is dependent on its larval diet. I think clarification on what the success looks like and how the diet is able to affect the success could be helpful. Lastly, I think the section on calling behavior should have a citation.

I made a few changes to the page. First there were some grammatical errors and sentence structure issues so I edited that. Additionally, the shortened scientific name was not italicized throughout the article, so I went through and italicized the name. Another small change I made was adding an external link to the word “scotophase”. The external link serves to define the word as the general public may not be aware of its meaning. I also moved the information in the description section to the introduction. I thought the description section essentially had the same information as the introduction section, but was more detailed. Therefore, I thought it was more suited as an introduction to the article.

If you do not agree with these changes, I am more than willing to talk about it more with you! CR.Tracy (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added hyperlinks for technical biology terms, fixed grammatical errors, and edited some sentences for better flow. I think your article has really strong sections that go in depth but also weaker sections that make the article feel really imbalanced. For example, the "mating" section has a really short blurb at the beginning and 1-2 sentence entries under "female" and "male" whereas the section on pheromones is massive. Furthermore, it would benefit your article greatly to write some of these sections as if your audience was just a layman. Some questions begged when reading. What is a tender leaf? What is a growth-stimulating effect? What is the scotophase? Explaining some of these confusing or technical parts will elevate your article. Cheers. Ecampell22 (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hey there! I did a run through edit for grammar/spelling/etc. I condensed the female and male topics under mating, and made the sub heading 2s into sub heading 1s. I think this makes more sense and de-clutters the article. Finally can you add a citation for the paragraph about calling behavior? I'm not sure which sources you used for it.

Reach out if you want to talk more about the changes I made! Emilykh26 (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edit

I think that this article is very well written and covers a good deal of information! I did make a few edits and wanted to put forth a few suggestions to help improve its scope. I corrected a few awkward sentences and edited punctuation (in the "Mating" subsection). I also edited the phrasing in sections to ensure that parallel structure was maintained (talking about the species in singular or plural throughout instead of switching between the two) like in the "Capsaicin" subsection. As for suggestions, I would recommend adding a few images of this moth just to illustrate the concepts that are being covered. The last two sentences in the Lead Section may also need to be cited. Finally, the "Life Cycle" section does cover a good deal of information for both larvae and adults, but including subsections on Eggs and Pupae could really make the entry more thorough. J.Prakash2344 (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]