Content deleted Content added
m Dating comment by Z.kelley - "→Peer Review for Behavioral Ecology Class: " |
Vkrishnan2 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 32:
This article has a good degree of detail and is well researched. I reorganized the introduction of the article, or the lead so that the paragraphs all contained relevant information and the flow of the information was more logical. I then added a bit more detail in the lead than just “suffers parasitism and predation” – I added in several examples of the species that were included later. I also added in a few more facts about the moth, such as details on the clutch size. Finally, I added in a new section on the management of these moths as a pest, and I added in the relevant resource. Awesome job! [[User:Z.kelley|Z.kelley]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This a good article and serves as an adequate overview of the moth. The adults subsection of the food resources section could be improved. Maybe talk about why they are attracted to the plants mentioned. For example, do they like eating the leaves of deciduous trees? Additionally, for the protective coloration section, a citation is needed. This is required in order to follow wikipedia's guidelines. Also, I think the section could be more specific about how the coloration of the moth is distributed across its body. Overall, I thought the moth was described in great detail in the article and that it is near worthy of Good Article status. [[User:vkrishnan2|vkrishnan2]] ([[User talk:vkrishnan2|talk]]) 16:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
| |||