Talk:Madrone butterfly

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: Alemah19, RV2014, Pranita.kaginele.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Ecology project

I will be working on this butterfly as a part of my class project. All suggestions are welcome.

This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Washington_University_in_St_Louis/Behavioral_Ecology_(Fall).
Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article.

Shreenidhipm (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Ecology Student - Wiki Project

This is an excellent article! It is very well-written and thorough - thanks so much for adding all this information! I have made a couple edits to the page to help fix grammatical and syntactical errors, adding and removing words and reorganizing sentence structure to help add clarity and fluidity to the writing. I also changed a couple instances of tense change to keep the past tense writing consistent. I noticed the term E. Socialis had been left un-italicized a couple times and fixed that error. Lastly, I added links to various Wikipedia articles throughout the article. One suggestion I have is attempting to find or license more photos of the butterfly to help bring more clarity to the description of the image. Pranita.kaginele (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Editing

The article looks great! A lot of good information that is conveyed clearly is well coupled with good organization and citation. The majority of my edits are described in my edit notes: "Mostly minor grammatical edits, one major change in which I removed a putative statement about hybridization that appeared to not have been tested." Keep up the good work! Alexander Mahmoud (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for Class

I thought that you did a great job on this article and it is clear that you put in a lot of effort into the research! For example, I think that you did an excellent job on the life cycle and social behavior sections - they both have a lot of great in-depth information! Also, I think that your article is very well organized. I suggest some minor grammatical changes to help with sentence flow. Also, there are a few claims where I suggest adding some more clarifying information, so that the reader has some more information and context - for example: the area about conspecific eggs in the ovipositon section, the part about the karyotypic differentiation, and the parts about mortality differences between males and females. Also, if possible, it could be a good idea to add some information to the Distribution section since it is short. Also, it be a good idea to change phrases like “___ is assumed to be ____” and “____ is expected to be _____” because it makes it seem like you are drawing conclusions and the phrasing is a bit strange. Rather, it may be better to just say the statement/fact directly. Overall, I think that you did a great job on this article! RV2014 (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More peer editing! I also think you've done some great work on this article. I made a couple small grammatical edits, but other than that, it is well-written and clear. In the second half of the article, there are no pictures, which takes away from its readability. Adding more images of the different life stages of the butterfly, its habitat, and perhaps its utilization by humans would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the information you're communicating. I would also suggest adding more detail to the "Mating" section, perhaps about specific behaviors, time of year, etc. Hanna peterman (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This is a very good article overall, but I do not understand the title of your last section. Status is not what is described here and the section is quite vague. You should take it out and add that information to the geographic location section since you talk about range.