Talk:Queen (butterfly)

Added section on Courtship/Mating, added new info on Defense
I have added information on Courtship/mating rituals and defense, specifically on the debate on whether the Queen serves as a model or a mimic. Thatgirlnamedsofa (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)thatgirlnamedsofa

Added new section on defense
Hi! The article's looking good so far. I just added a new section on defense with approximately 170 words, and one new citation. It briefly mentions mimicry and is focused on how predators respond differently to the Queen butterfly based on its diet. NK2015 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)NK2015

Added morphology, distribution, and food/host plants sections
Hello! I will be contributing to this article throughout the next couple months for a behavioral ecology class at WUSTL. I have already worked on the following sections: morphology, distribution + habitat, and food sources. I plan to add more sections on mating behavior and mimicry. Comments, critiques, and suggestions will be much appreciated! Thatgirlnamedsofa (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)thatgirlnamedsofa

Review
Overall, this is a well-written and informative article. However, there are no references in the Life cycle section, which should be added before a Good Article nomination. For the purposes of this class, it may be a good idea to include a Behavior section, and bring all the behavioral information under this section.Abuatois (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great job with the morphology section. Next information could be about mating behavior, more information on predation, or more detail in the life cycle section. I would possibly think about moving some images from the gallery to the life cycle section to have a visual link with each stage. Also, there are some great pictures of the eggs on Flickr. its licensed but you can contact the person photographer pretty easily on Flickr so you could give that a shot. 12:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jychoe90 (talk • contribs)

I just made writing and grammatical edits and added a few Wikilinks. Overall, it looks great! I would say that some of the sections are a little sparse, so either try to integrate to have less of a break and more information in one section, or just add more information to each section. It just seems like there are too many section breaks that interrupt the flow of the article. Ashleynlin (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I made a few more grammatical edits and added some more hyperlinks. I also rearranged some of the page organization (I thought the images were better at the bottom instead of breaking up the article). Some suggestions would be to add more information regarding mating systems, such as monogamy/polygamy/etc. I think a section on migration would also added to the article, given the information is available. Also, I think looking into mating behaviors such as territoriality would improve the depth of your article. Ichooxu (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The new section looks great! I added wikilinks to your addition to make it more clear and corrected some grammatical mistakes. I think the section on predation could be improved. The language is too specialized and not clearly defined. I did not understand the following section: “Evidence suggests that the interaction of cardenolides and noncardenolides are utilized for danaine chemical defenses,” I think you should define or give some context about what "danaine defenses" are. Aliciacanas (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer review
It could be nice to embed the photos within the article instead of just placing them in a secluded gallery at the end. All of the photos should have captions. The last sentence of the life cycle section seems out of place, this should not be a one sentence paragraph and is confusing what is meant by having multiple generations a year. Clarification and elaboration is needed. This could be placed in the reproduction section. The grammar of the first sentence of the distribution and habitat section is confusing when referring to the new and old world. The threats section seems to be too short to stand by itself, I would combine it with the defense section, remove it, or greatly expand on it. For the flow of the article, the reproduction section could be placed ahead of life cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batoburen (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article looks great! There may be a little bit of work to do on fixing up the lead according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. I appreaciate that the citations are abundant and consistent throughout the article. I noticed a few missing Wikilinks, so I removed them. I would recommend adding a "Taxonomy" section. Otherwise, the article is extremely thorough and looks amazing. Ashleynlin (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Chrysalis picture
Does anyone have a picture of its Chrysalis state? --Jamo58 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

More edits
The most important change I made to the article was expanding the lead section so it accurately and succinctly summarizes the main points of the article. Before, the lead didn’t really summarize the contents of the article. In addition, I added citations to information that hadn’t been cited and cleaned up some of the writing to make it clearer for the lay reader.Solon5g93 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Title
Is it really necessary to put parenthesis around the "butterfly" part? Booger-mike (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)