User talk:RV2014/sandbox

Peer Review
This article had a lot of great information and was topically well organized. However, at times I found it challenging to follow, but this was likely an attempt to avoid plagiarism, which is always appreciated! I did edit quite a lot of grammar and syntax in an attempt to help the article flow more effectively and to eliminate wordy or cumbersome sentences. Additionally, I think it would strengthen the article to include information on life cycle that is specific to this butterfly as opposed to just about butterflies in general. Also, for Wikipedia standards, it is important to use more formal language and not include contractions like “don’t” and “wouldn’t”. In terms of the section on habitat, it would be helpful to expand upon why it makes sense based on the butterfly’s diet that it lives in a Mulberry field. It may seem intuitive that this is because they consume mullberries, but it would be beneficial to draw this link for the reader. ClaudiaEE 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I like how this article has a lot of interesting information on breeding of the wild silkmoth and information of plant pheromones and sex pheromones. I think it would be more effective to create a section on Pheromones and then subsections differentiating these two. I have made some additions to your lead section and would recommend removing the taxonomy section, as there is already a taxa box that has the same information. Also, I made a change in your description to make it more concise, as the first sentence was a run-on. Sahilmehta97 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Review for Class
I think it would be good to work on making the article a little easier to read and flow better between facts and sections, but the information is quite interesting. I think that really specific citing of the articles, like starting sentences “Research, such as the article “Captive Breeding for Thousands of Years has Impaired Olfactory Functions in Silkmoths,” has shown…” is unnecessary. It’s little clunky way to start a sentence. As a reader if I want to know what research is showing, then I will look at the footnotes and reference section to read the scientific articles myself. I think the article is still a work in progress and more information could be added to all of the sections. I’m especially curious as to why mulberry patches are good habitats for these butterflies besides being their food source! -Mullenm05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullenm05 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your draft. Some ideas on how you can improve things more Avoid self-references. Instead of saying "The organism that this page is written about is the Bombyx mandarina (scientific name)" just say "Bombyx mandarina is..." In addition, when talking about taxonomy, don't repeat information that's in the taxobox.
 * Taxonomy

Looking at the article, there's a pretty substantial Phylogeny and systematics section. In the context of an article like this, taxonomy and systematics are effectively synonyms. That said, that "phylogeny and systematics" section needs some work. Whoever wrote that section seems to have drawn their own conclusions based on the sources, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The sources are also rather out of date. That section could use some serious updating and improvement.

A description section should start with a description of the species, not a comparison with another species. You should include information about the size, the wingspan, the colouring and patterns. Chrysiridia rhipheus is a featured article, so it's among the best on Wikipedia. Have a look at its description section for some ideas. Lulworth skipper is a Good Article, which is the next best tier. Have a look at its description section as well.
 * Description

You need to be more precise and careful with your writing. You can't use "silk moth" and "silkmoth" in the same sentence. You need to be consistent. "A bit different in the way it looks" uses a lot more words than it needs to. Simply saying something like

says the same thing in a lot fewer words. (As an aside: since the article is titled, Bombyx mandarina, it's better to refer to it that way. Regardless, you need to be consistent throughout the article.

In formal writing, you very rarely start a sentence with "also". And having started the second sentence that way, you wouldn't start the third with "in addition".

Be as specific as you can when it comes to distributions. You can't say "in parts of Russia and parts of Asia" - Russia is the largest country on Earth, and is mostly located in Asia. So unless you mean "European Russia and parts of Asia" you would never separate Russia out. You could say that it's "found in parts of Asia, from [specific part of Russia], to Korea and Japan". But you need to be specific. You shouldn't mention a whole country unless it's found throughout the country.
 * Distribution

"Some researchers claim..." is the sort of wording you need to avoid on Wikipedia. "Some researchers" is too vague. Which ones? Or, failing that (since it's hard to know precisely) attribute the opinion. Also avoid "claim" where possible. "Some researchers claim..." is the sort of phrase that's used to cast doubt on a statement. Avoid that sort of structure. Reports of different numbers of chromosomes probably goes in the "phylogeny and systematics" section anyway.


 * Habitat

You shouldn't use "the" before a scientific name. Mulberry fields aren't a habitat, they're a cultivated environment. "Habitat" is more about vegetation types and climate types. You could say "Bombyx mandarina feeds on mulberry leaves and is found [in some specified type of habitat], usually around mulberry fields".

This should be part of the phylogeny and systematics section
 * Similar species


 * Diet

Don't say "different compounds". Discuss the compounds, but don't just say "many different". Even "many" alone is an improvement, since it conveys the same information with fewer words.

Wikipedia articles don't include general information that you could link to. Don't talk about the general life cycle of a moth, but do discuss the specific parts of the life cycle of this moth. For some useful ideas, take a look at Helicoverpa_zea and Chrysiridia_rhipheus.
 * Life cycle

Don't start talking about a study. Talk about the interesting findings, not the study. Don't refer to the title of an article, though you may want to mention the names of the authors. Similarly in the "Attraction Patterns" subsection, don't start with "A different study by..." Discuss the big picture stuff first. Assume that most of your readers aren't going to read past the first sentence. Make sure they walk away with the "meat" of the discussion. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sex Pheromone

Second round of peer reviews
Hi! Overall, a good overview of the moth is provided with this article. I rewrote and condensed some sections for clarity, and hyperlinked pages where appropriate. One thing to note is that headings should only have the first word capitalized (as per Wikipedia guidelines) and species’ scientific names should be italicized. While longer sections provided a good understanding of the topic specified, a large number of sections are only a sentence or two long- if you could elaborate on those sections, I think you have the makings of a great article! liu.emily (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer-Edit for Behavioral Ecology Class
I made several wording/phrasing edits throughout the article to help improve the format as well as flow of the entry. Specifically, there were a few sentences that needed a little bit more context in order to convey their points more clearly. Second, I edited a few citations so that they maintained a parallel structure throughout the article (citation before period at end of sentence). There are several sections in the article that I think could benefit from expansion. For example, the "Habitat" and "Mating limitations" sections seem particularly short. The "Habitat section could definitely use some more material, and the "Mating limitations" section could be combined with another section if it is difficult to find more content. Lastly, I added a picture of the "Fall Webworm Moth" to add some visual aid to the content that you will be adding to this existing Wikipedia Page. Nice job overall! J.Prakash2344 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I edited the article in the following ways: I added hyperlinks to different places – countries in the intro section, more complicated words in different sections. I corrected a couple grammatical errors. For the interactions with humans section, you could specify the side effects of chemicals. Overall, a good, clear article. Could expand more on the parental care and host plant sections, also the predator and parasites. Need to italicize all the species names. - sjwang312 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjwang312 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional feedback
Nice work on your draft. I made a few formatting fixes - references go after punctuation, not before, and section headers shouldn't be bolded. A few other comments follow: You want to report on facts for a general audience, not report on research. For example:
 * Enemies

Instead, you might want to turn it around.

It's really important that you tell people "what", not simply "that":

Readers don't want to know that Boucias and Nordin discussed this. They want to know what they talked about, what they found.


 * Thermoregulation

Avoid using passive voice like this. Instead, you might try something like

Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the great suggestions! I have made revisions based on your suggestions. Can I now upload to the main space? RV2014 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have made revisions based on what you recommended on my talk page, so I will upload this material to the main space. Thank you again for your suggestions and help! RV2014 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)