Talk:Small tortoiseshell/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these nominations; we seem to be suddenly bombarded with butterflies (which is a good thing!). I'm concerned that this one is a bit premature, though. First, the article appears to have no lead section, which is a requirement per WP:LEAD and the GA criteria. Second, it has a two-year-old cleanup banner for needing citations that hasn't been removed and doesn't seem to have been addressed. At least one section makes statements that seem to need citation ("Scientific evidence shows", "This butterfly may then be sensitive to global warming", etc.); I don't see any citations for that subsection at all.

Because of these issues, I'm closing this review and not listing for GA at this time. But please feel free to renominate as soon as these issues have been addressed. Thanks, and good luck, Khazar2 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Range and food plant range
I can't help noticing that the range of the butterfly shown in the map in the article extends considerably further East in Asia than the range of Urtica dioica, the supposed food plant. Presumably the eastern populations eat other species of food plant. Plant surfer 00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)