Talk:Aglossa cuprina

Discussion
Wording of the first sentence in the 'Distribution' section... I think the first sentence under the 'Distribution' heading needs to be reworded because you stated that "A. cuprina has been found in a number of countries worldwide" and then you go on to list both countries and continents. In class Dr. Brundage said there was very little information out there on this insect; you guys really put together an informative article though! Good job. Mehermance (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Mehermance! Great point - what you have said makes complete sense. I'll get to editing. Thanks for your feedback!Nanayaagh (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, good job because we also had a sp. that didn't yield much at all. Only thing I think you could improve on is a few more links within the paragraphs. When I get into the depth of the paragraph a "non" entomologist might want to do some further investigation on subjects presneted.Robertsonza7 (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Robertsonza7. Good suggestion. I will try to spread out the links and/or incorporate more. Thank you for taking time to read the article! Nanayaagh (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay again, Robertsonza7, thank you for your input. However, because of the little information found on our species, it was our best work, at least at this time, to keep the in-text citation number as is. I wish we could add more, but more research is yet to be found. Also I don't want to clutter the area with too many repeated footnote references. Nanayaagh (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article. You put together a very well-written piece of work, especially for the amount of information you had to work with. There's not much that I can think of to add. The only thing I noticed is that the final paragraph on research seemed to contain more info on the life cycle of Aglossa caprealis than on current research. I know information may be sparse, but maybe you could see about including a little more actual research or just including the life cycle stuff into another section. Great article though guys. Acreese23 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Acreese23, I understand where you are coming from. The reason that we included Aglossa caprealis is because there is little to no current research on our species, and A. caprealis is the closest species, and as a result, its characteristics can be applied to this article to some extent. Nanayaagh (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done. I was quite surprised as to the amount you guys were able to find. I did a little googling and found no where near this amount of information. I imagine this was near impossible but the lack of links was noticable. Most pages have quite a few more that both link into it and out of it, but I understand that was not very possible in the case of this sp. williamthegreat1 Thank you for reading our article williamthegreat1. Yes doing research for this particular species was tough, we had to use every resource we could find and look into their resources. We even looked into the species' close relatives. It was hard work but we are glad to share the knowledge we have learned about this species.--Pbianca88 (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Great Job on the page. I thought it was well thought out and organized in a great way, especially since there was not a whole lot of information on this species. I think this page will exceed her expectations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggie2011 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is very well organized. My question regards the category title 'Distribution'. On some other Lepidoptera pages, the same type of information is labeled under the word 'Range' instead. I don't necessarily think that one of these terms is better to use than the other, but I do feel that it should be consistent throughout the pages. Should Distribution be changed to Range? KmarcusBC (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge?
I added the merge tag because in this edit, Nanayaagh attempted to redirect Aglossa pinguinalis to this article with the edit summary "article with same topic". I'm not an entomologist, so I wouldn't know if it's the same critter. I interpreted it as a possible merge suggestion by that user, as an article cannot be a redirect and contain article content. --Geniac (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Geniac ! I was wondering how to do that. Nanayaagh (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy
The Taxonomy section is pretty short. Maybe you could combine it with another section or add a little more information to it. Also, you have no external links. I do not know if they are needed or not, but you may want to put some just for other references. Otherwise, your article looks great!Vekrull (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look into this. Your input is appreciated, Vekrull. Nanayaagh (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Vekrull, if you look at most other Arthropod articles, the Taxonomy sections are of relative length. I feel ours is sufficient. And again, our species is pretty hard to figure out. Thank you for reading our article! Nanayaagh (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing
This article is very informative and well written. However I did find a few minor errors. In the Taxonomy section A. pinguinalis needs to be italicized. Also in the Adult section the last sentence “It attributes to simple, filiform antennae.” did not seem very clear. I think it should simply say "A. cuprina is also know for its filiform antennae." or something along those lines. It would also be nice to see more information about the life cycle of the moth along with the description of each stage of development. Other than that it looks good. DianaW10 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa kudos for catching that..I'll change it right away. Thanks DianaW10! Nanayaagh (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well written & very imformative. Just a few minor edits... Behavior... You don't mention "Grains Moths" anywhere else besides the first sentence of the Behavior section, nor is "Grains moths" a link, so while the feeding habits of these moths may be similar, this sentence seems rather unnecessary. In the next sentence, I think you meant to put "flour", but both times it is spelled "floor". The link to "suet" refers specifically to mutton and beef fat, do these moths only feed on these two types of animal fat? The last four sentences of the behavior paragraph are rather choppy and might flow better if they were rearranged.  Forensic importance..."Food defect action levels" could be linked. "A. cuprina is a common aspect of stored product entomology..." is redundant (already mentioned this in the first sentence of the paragraph) and a little unclear, maybe changing "aspect" to a different word would help with this. Also, the sentence that begins "grease moth larvae infest..." should be edited for grammatical correctness because "larvae" is plural and the sentence refers to a single "it" ("... as it feeds it produces"). This should either be changed to "they" or "larvae" should be changed to the singular form (larva). Ag2012 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ag2012 ! I'm on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanayaagh (talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nice article and well written. I had no problem understanding the article at all. One of the minor changes that I would put in is in your Distribution section. Instead of listing every state that they are found in you could probably list geographic regions of the U.S., such as the Eastern coast and parts of the western United States. In your forensic importance section you said, "recently evidence suggests that A. cuprina may soon have forensic importance as well". I think that stored product entomology is part of the forensic importance. You could probably say that they are starting to become a part of human decomposition instead. Is there any upcoming or future research that is available? If there isn't probably say that there are no plans for future research. Other than those picky points, I think that ya'll did a great job! H2342 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you H2342 for your input, changes have been made.--Pbianca88 (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits
For having so little information to work with you guys did a great job! The pictures are wonderful. Make sure your article uses both metric and US/imperial units. This is most easily done using the 'convert' template. So for the measurement in this adult section, you could use convert|1.5|in|mm|sigfig=1 enclosed by. That's the only suggestion I have. Shealamartin (talk)
 * Hm, I never thought about that, Shealamartin. Thanks for making our article better! Nanayaagh (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good article, but there are just a couple of things that are confusing. For instance, why is only tabby (which redirects to tabby cat) linked in the words "large tabby moth". This link would be much better used in the description of the adult rather than in the introduction. Also, this is just a minor edit, but in the introduction where it says, "two pairs of overlapping, membranous, scaled-covered wings." that should be changed to "scale-covered wings". Another suggestion would be to maybe put how long each stage of development is for the description. Also, since you have such small paragraphs (1-2 sentences each), it might be better to combine the developmental paragraphs. Another kind of picky suggestion that I have is in the distribution paragraph, where you say " worldwide including Europe, Asia, Australia, India, North America, and South America", you really don't need to put India again because it's part of Asia, and is therefore kind of redundant. Another quick fix, but in the behavior section, you've spelled "whole wheat floor, graham floor", when it should be flour. But overall it's a very good article with great readability. Good Job! Deepa.lalu (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you Deepa.lalu for your input, the grammatical errors have been fixed. Pbianca88 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that y'all did a great job on this article! I only have a few suggestions that might help. First you might want to reference the chart on the right during your taxonomy section. Second, there is a run on sentence in the second paragraph of y'alls distribution section. Third, the last sentence in the first paragraph of the forensic section should maybe be reworded for clarity. Maybe like "With substantial infestations, the larvae and its silk will spread throughout the entire product rendering it unsellable." These are just a few of my personal thoughts. Overall, I think y'all did a nice job of informing the wikipedia community of Aglossa cuprina. --Kaleelkirk (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Description
Great article, guys. It's really interesting and sounds well researched. I just have a couple of suggestions for you. The description section is kind of harsh on the eyes and is perhaps broken up into too many sections. Condensing it all into one paragraph would really make the article more pleasing to the eye as well as make it easier to read. Also, it would be nice to have a life cycle section explaining the different stages rather than just describing how they look. Other than that, I am very impressed with your article considering what little information you had to work with. Nice job :) KellyA09 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. --Hoagiebear (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to add that on the information contained in the description section you should link back to your resources stating where you obtained this information from, such as a key or perhaps another article, other than that a fantastic read!Bandeh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

First off, good job writing this page with little information. I know our professor said you guys were going to have a tough time. Next, I would suggest linking Grains Moths if that is possible. Also is Grains supposed to be plural? Under development it could be useful to know how long the stages are. Also, I thought that the moths fed on actual human remains on the fatty tissue? I liked the article, it was fairly informative!!! Kels068724 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Research is still being conducted in regard to lifecycle. Thanks for the suggestions --Hoagiebear (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed
Synonymy messed up. Please adjust parentheses. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the source cited for the alleged synonymy as well as this distinguish A. cuprina and A. pinguinalis, with both listed as valid species. A look at the description dates alone would ring all alarms! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Separate species
It's clear that Aglossa cuprina and Aglossa pinguinalis are separate species. Looks at articles of each at BugGuide.net for example:
 * http://bugguide.net/node/view/41475
 * http://bugguide.net/node/view/38009

Just from looking a pictures alone, you can tell it's a separate species. A. pinguinalis is native to Europe, A. cuprina is not. Obvious differences like this are not shown in the article, showing a factual disaster.

The Only Random Person (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits for Behavioral Ecology Course
I am currently editing this page for a Behavioral Ecology course and have a few suggestions: a.	Description: The article currently has a description page but should be divided between stages of life (egg/larvae, and moth). This should improve the flow and prose of the section, with is currently not very good. Additionally, this will allow them to go into detail about this specific section and not have to refer to another species (which they do often). b.	Behavior: They have a behavior section, but it is short and only includes basic information about feeding and flying. They could create subsections and include information about interactions with other organisms, grouping, mating, ect. c.	Research: Ninety percent of this section talks about the features of another species. They should remove this section, link it to the page of that species, or try to find more relevant information on the current research without including original research.

Meganav (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2017