Talk:Speyeria mormonia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilykh26. Peer reviewers: CR.Tracy, Crieber, Kaylaholthaus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Name
Why is the word mormon (in the form mormonia) used as part of the name of this insect? What is source and given reason for the name? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Emily Haussler and I'm a student at Washington University in St. Louis. As part of my Behavioral Ecology class, I have researched and helped to rewrite this page. Most of my changes involved growing it from a stub article. I additionally added information to the taxobox, and another picture. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Emilykh26 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review
Overall the article had a wide variety of information and it was well written! The page was also cited well. I only have a few suggestions for the page. I think adding a description to the picture found near the mud puddling section would be helpful. The picture is really nice, but it is unclear if the butterfly is engaging in a specific activity. If no activity is occurring even a simple description like “female Speyeria mormonia” is doable. If it is possible, more information about mating could be interesting. For example, it might be interesting to know if they use pheromones, sound, vision, etc. in their mating process. Oviposition could also be a relevant topic to further explore. However, I was unable to find specific research papers on these topics so there may not be enough information available.

I only made a few changes to the page. I made some grammatical changes and changed some sentence structure. I also made mud puddling a subsection of the food resources category. I thought because the behavior was for obtaining food, it made sense to be a subsection. Overall it was a great article! Good job! CR.Tracy (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This article was easy to read, informative, and well-written. I didn't find any major issues, but I did edit a couple of typos and grammatical issues. I also rearranged a couple of sentences without adding or removing information to make them more clear, including a couple of sentences in the resources section. Good luck with future edits if you choose to make them! --Kaylaholthaus (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Emily, I thought this article had a lot of good information and was written well. I would suggest adding more detail to the life history section if it is available, as that section is a little sparse. Other than that it looks great! Srosefuqua (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)