Talk:Chrysiridia rhipheus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Chrysiridia rhipheus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

I have given this article a B. It is still quite short, but what's there is good, and well-referenced, which is very important. I think the sections (or several of them) could probably be merged, which would help to tighten the prose a bit. --Stemonitis
To-do list for Chrysiridia rhipheus: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Pro_bug_catcher (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] Picture

I added a Gallery picture I believe it shows the colour of the wings better than the other "thumb" picture. I think both are worthy to be up so I thought this would be the most effect way. -- IvanTortuga 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK, begin GA reivew notes...

Right. I will place notes to look at or fix as I go. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It is considered to be the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera - now that's a pretty big claim! Would it not be better to phrase as " It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful of all Lepidoptera" ? Note I am not an entomologist so this may be correct (the claim that is)?
    • Well, beauty being what it is (i.e. subjective, "in the eye of the beholder", etc.), some say it is the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera. A few other Lepidoptera claim that "title": Morpho, Saturniidae (including Actias luna and, Hyalophora cecropia)… and that’s just a “Google test”. I’m pretty sure I could find hard references for each one, I could also add a few more references claiming it for Chrysiridia rhipheus but that would simply a proof by verbosity. All I’m really saying is that although it is often considered the most beautiful, sometimes it isn’t. Phrasing it as you have makes the claim always true. I agree with your comment and will change it myself. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In biology articles I have created (well, the long ones), such as Common Raven and Emperor Penguin, I have a taxonomy and naming section under the lead (who described it/wehn, what its related to and other common and scientific names). This is good as lead material needs to go somewhere in main body, and it pushes the description section further down, usually to a place where you can put images in it without worrying about the taxobox jutting down the right hand side :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I wrote a taxonomy section. I still haven't found a source explicitly giving the etymology. But I suspect : rhipheus is from the Latin Montes Rhiphaeus = Ural Mts. [1] (another indication pointing to that is the French vernacular name "Uranie Riphée" for the same mounts), and Chrysiridia would be a contraction of the name Chrysippe and some other word. Do you think the first source good enough to cite as the etymology? But I think it still isn't long enough to push the description down (not on my browser & screen at least). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have an ancient greek lexicon - Chrys- is golden, iridia, will be 'eyes' I think (cf. iridology). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have stuffed up the formatting somehow and the WP pages are loading really slowly here for some reason. If you look at Banksia ericifolia, you'll see some layout options for images down one side of an article which would look better than a gallery. See what you think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree galleries have too much grey, and too little of the actual pictures. But I don't really know of a better alternative. The sections aren't big enough to use the "style float" on the right. What do you think of placing the pictures on the left? It moves the Wing microstructure in my browser... which I don't like much. Markup on the left would be like this (in case you want to try for yourself): {| style="float:left;" |- |[[Image:Chrysiridia madagascarensis.JPG|thumb|160px|left|''Chrysiridia rhipheus'' underside]] |- |[[Image:Chrysiridia rhipheus 2.jpg|thumb|160px|left|''Chrysiridia rhipheus'' topside]] |} Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think this is the best solution [2]. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • With respect to layout, a nice hierarchy of headings looks good. In this one, if you rename Range to Distribution and habitat (as the heading as is doesn't cover habitat which is covered in the section anyway), and make Host plants a subsection thereof, while Habits rename Behaviour and then Life cycle can become a subsection of that. Nectar sources can be diet or keep its name and be placed under behaviour - then relationship with humans can go at the bottom. Also, are there any local malagasy legends or folklore about the critter? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Section change done. I'll write what I found on the beliefs associated with the moth (Lepidoptera in general actually) later. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The small caterpillar starts by eating the tissue between the veins of the leaves (mesophyll). - took me a while to figure out what this was about - I couldn't figure out - starting what...you might want to clarify or expand a bit here.
    • Clarification(?): "After they hatch, the small caterpillars only eat the tissue (mesophyll) between the veins of the leaves. They do this to avoid the sticky and toxic latex produced by the plant's laticifers and transported in the veins. Later instars still eat leaves but also flowers, fruit, tendrils and young stems, defoliating the entire plant. They can deal with the chemical defences in the latex and it does not cause problems of mouthpart coagulation." Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How long does it stay a caterpillar? Be good to put in life cycle sectionCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)
    • I haven't found out. None of the references I have give that information, but I suspect Catala talks about it... Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 04:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • is the cocoon made of anything? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • (tried to) Clarify: "After completing all but its last moult, the caterpillar goes to the ground, and spins an open network cocoon out of silk. The caterpillar's last moult brings it to the stage of chrysalis." Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 04:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • They go from the three species from the dry deciduous forest... - 'go' sounds a little bit casual - 'travel' or 'migrate' or...?
  • Is there a reason (i.e. extra information) why Imagine is used rather than just 'adult moth'(s)?

[edit] GA passed

I will pass it as GA as I feel it passes the criteria now. I fixed up a few typos. If you want to go for FAC, there would be more info to gather. This is where having more info on life cycle, nectar sources, and folklore, as well as collector status and how/who ranks which lepidopteran is the 'best' etc, plus the prose could be gone over by another copyeditor. If you want to do this, and are able to get sources one day, give me a heads up. GA is a good 'staging point' to sit on until then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)