Talk:Papilio xuthus

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ochitnis (article contribs).

---

I added a couple of sentences to the lead to better reflect the article and I also added a couple of internal Wikipedia links to other articles (Polistes wasps, the army ant, etc.). NK2015 (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I added sections on mating, development and population dynamics, oviposition, and mortality factors. Ashleynlin (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job overall. I fixed a number of minor grammatical errors. I also moved some information that was misplaced to other sections. I also moved the Development and Populations Dynamics section to the end because I feel that it was out of place. I also added the Gallery heading. For further improvements, I think work could be done to clean up the article and make the writing more concise and clear. I think certain sections are a bit dense, and may not be the most appropriate writing style for Wikipedia.Maximilianzhang (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice information! I added a small paragraph on the foraging habits of the Papilio xuthus (and its relation to color constancy). Also, the author of this article tended to be very long-winded and mentioned a lot of information that the average Wikipedia viewer would not care to see (for example, which study the information came from). All that is needed is "According to researchers..." Therefore, I cut out a lot of the unnecessary information and condensed the long-winded sentences. The information here though is definitely solid, and I can see it's well on its way to being a good article. NK2015 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Lots of good detailed information! I edited a few spelling and grammatical issues in the behavior sections. In addition, I added some information to the description section. Wmhua (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Overall I thought the article was informative and well written. The only problems I saw were in regards to the organization of the page as a whole. I moved some things around and made certain sections subsections to other sections, such as putting the oviposition section under the mating section. There are also some things that need citations, particularly in the opening section and in the Life cycle section. Morganclem (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I fixed citations throughout and added substantial Wikilinks. Ashleynlin (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that your contributions are very informative and well written. Furthermore, your description section is concise and articulated well. I think any problems that I noticed had to do with the intro section and the life cycle section. This link gives detailed instructions of what is looked for in a good lead section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section It was provided to me by my good article reviewer and I find it to be a bit lengthy but informative. For the life cycle section, I would just delete this section all together unless you can find something more to add to it. Morganclem (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added a very brief "Taxonomy" section. In response to Morganclem (talk) comment on the "Life Cycle" section, I removed the section. There was no citation to support the information provided and I could not find any other sources to back up what was there. I also made some stylistic edits regarding the writing. Ashleynlin (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up the main body of the article. I tried to change sentence structure to make the information more accessible to the average wikipedia viewer and I removed unnecesary information, as NK2015 (talk) suggested. However, the article still needs work, especially regarding sentente flow. Aliciacanas (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Papilio xuthus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 15:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: NK2015

This article suffers from multiple problems.

• The lead section is not adequate at all. Our guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This lead currently gives a lot of information that is not covered in the body of the article, and it does not summarize the most important facts in the article.

• There are numerous grammatical and logical errors throughout. The very first sentence seems to refer to a place called "Hawaii Northern Myanmar", omits a space between "Japan" and an opening parenthesis, and mentions Hawaii twice. The second sentence (making up the entire second paragraph) has obvious grammatical flaws. The entire article needs a thorough copyedit.

• When a single source is used to support a paragraph of text, all important information in that paragraph should be supported by the source. The "Description" section is supported only by Koch and Nijhout (2002), but that source does not mention some of the facts in that section, such as the insect's wingspan.

• Information from sources needs to be reworded in your own words to avoid close paraphrasing, a subtle form of plagiarism. In the "Description" section, the source states "On the hind wing, regions of blue-iridescent and orange scales separate some of the black bands. The black pattern on the dorsal fore wing consists of tapering venous stripes..." Compare this to the text in the Wikipedia article: "Also on the hind wing are regions of blue-iridescent and orange scales separating some of the black bands. Black patterns also run as tapering venous stripes..." These are too close to be acceptable. I know that you, NK2015, did not write this particular section of text, but the article as a whole is not ready for GA status if these problems remain. I suspect there are other examples of close paraphrasing in the article.

• Some important information is missing from the article. To give some examples, the "Description" section does not contain descriptive information about the caterpillar, the information on the insect's life cycle is rudimentary, there is little taxonomic information, etc. To see a fully fleshed-out article on a similar species, see Chrysiridia rhipheus.

This article does not merit GA status at this time. To fulfill our GA criteria, you will need to move all information from the lead into the article body, and then rewrite the lead from scratch. You would need to check all sources used to make sure the information in the article is fully supported without plagiarism. You would need to make sure all important information about the species is provided. And you would need to perform (or have someone else perform) a thorough copy-edit. If all this is done, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)