Talk:Bay checkerspot butterfly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bay checkerspot butterfly was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: March 24, 2008

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of butterflies and moths. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. this is a subspecies, but described in intro as a species
2. capitalisation of this and the other subspecies is erratic, eg Checkerspot is capped and lower cased in the first sentence, Island spp has Island capped and checkerspot lc, bay and Bay under appearance
3. intro is totally inadequate, should summarise article in a few paras WP:INTRO
4. headings are a mess -why is evolution part of description
5. Does this species really occur in the Channel Islands - I've never heard of it in Europe

Fixed to Channel Islands of California. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1. evolution did butterflies originate in the Americas? ambiguous
2. units not given with metric conversions
3. a lot of red-links, understandable for the subspecies, which I wouldn't link anyway, but have you checked whether the food plants have articles under the scientific names?
4. sustinence?
5. some paras unreffed
6. needs a copy edit, spelling and grammar errors
7. references should not also be external links, of which there are too many anyway. If they are sources, put them as references, if not, remove unless they genuinely add to the article

This is just what I picked up on a first read through. It needs a good deal of work to get it to GA Jimfbleak (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)