Talk:Parnassius smintheus

Parnassius smintheus 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 24, 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): Lily1004. Peer reviewers: Lauraem7, Y.shin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hi, I'm Ji-Yun Suh, and I'll be editing this page in the coming week extensively. I'm looking at the page now, and a lot of the writing currently don't have many pertinent citations, so I may edit and replace a lot of the parts that don't have reliable sources. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily1004 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so I've gone ahead and deleted most of the parts that didn't have reliable sources, and added new sections, including life cycle, food, dispersal, conservation, and more. Let me know if you think there are any errors! Thanks.Lily1004 (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Overall, I think this article is very good and with some minor changes and additions, this could receive good article status. I rearranged the formatting of this article. Originally, subspecies and similar species were placed in the middle of the article. In this format, these two categories seem like a distraction to the actual material in the article, so I moved them to the end before references. I also rewrote a few sentences to make them sound less subjective and more objective and straightforward. I also rewrote some sentences to correct grammar. I added my comments and what I changed to the talk page. Sahilmehta97 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work so far! I first fixed the capitalization of your titles so that it follows Wikipedia standards. I also contributed a short section on “Similar species.” As a side note, the other information in that section do not have proper citations. Please look into that. When reading your “Range and Habitat” section, the sentence “It has been suggested that males may prefer meadows with greater food sources more than females do due to needing more energy for greater flights and energy demand” confused me a bit because there was no explanation on why males may need more energy until later on in the “Mating” section (which doesn’t come for awhile). You can probably make this less confusing by adding an explanatory sentence in the earlier section. When making further edits, I would like to suggest more research on “Pupae” in the life cycles section and to discuss any predators this butterfly may have. Y.shin (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good article! I didn't change much, I added a few links to other Wikipedia pages that would be helpful, and I fixed a few minor grammar things and rearranged a few sentences to make them clearer. I think that you have a great mating and courtship section, and I think it would be interesting to add a section on enemies such as predators, parasites, and diseases as you mention some threats briefly but do not expand upon it. But overall, it was well-written and easy to read. Lauraem7 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parnassius smintheus/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.	I've done a bit of tidying up.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Regrouped some sections.
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.	The article is a competent bit of student work. Given that there's no response it seemed preferable to tidy it up rather than failing it out of hand. There is a serious issue that students can't be expected to review articles at GAN, so the whole system adds work for volunteers with no reviewing done in return, and clogs up the GAN queue for months at a time, but we can't blame the students for that.