Talk:Variable checkerspot

Taxonomy

 * Not quite sure what to do with this. The nomenclature of this group (yes, group) is not at all settled, and the most recent & thorough catalog (Pelham, 2008 et seq) has returned it back to where it was before this big lumping job, id est three species: E. chalcedona, E. colon & E. anicia. I'm giving strong consideration to splitting this into three articles, but as I haven't the time right now, it will be a spell before I can get to it. Should anyone else feel the need to do it, have at it! Glacierman (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits
You made a great addition to the article! You added very relevant information about the Behavior of the Variable Checkerspot. Overall, I think the article is very well-written. I rearranged the images so that the table of contents would not be in the center of the page. You should also think about adding more images to the text. I think pictures of this species during the larval stages would be a great addition. I also added wikilinks throughout the Behavior section.--Aliciacanas (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a well-written and clear article. Great Job. However, there are some paragraphs that are un-cited. This should be fixed, as it is one of the requirements for Good Article. Every paragraph must have a citation at the end. In the future, you could expand on the perching and territorial behavior of this butterfly. You could also expand on the evolution of wing coloration as a result of predation and talk about mimicry. Abuatois (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Broke down the behavior section into 4 distinct sub headings.Npatel92 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to GA Review
Thank you for the great feedback Quadell! I looked over at your suggestions and made the following changes to the article: I reworked the lead so it better summarizes the main points contained in the article. I fixed the spelling of the headings and made sure that my article follows the Manual of Style. I cited information that previously wasn't. I went back and reworded information that might be construed as plagiarism from the source. In addition, I made the writing clearer and reworded some confusing parts of the article. I hope this article will be renominated for GA status; are there any other points of concern that must be addressed before it can be a candidate for Good Article?Solon5g93 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)