Talk:Australian painted lady

Image in taxo box

I'm wondering why the perfectly good image I put in the taxo box when I started the article needed to be replaced (and eliminated from the article) by Dysmorodrepanis in a later edit. The replacement image was not better, or in my opinion, even comparable to the original for giving a full view of the butterfly. If Dysmorodrepanis intention was to add an image that showed the wings' underside, that could have been done just as easily by putting his image in the gallery.

I'm fairly new to wikipedia, and without knowing all the "ins and outs" I have assumed that I should respect the images (and text) other people have placed in articles. If I think I have a "better image" - I'll add it to the article, but not by displacing or removing someone else's work. As members of a collective enterprise, it seems to me that we should be respectful of the time and energy people have put into making their contributions and only remove another's work when it is clearly necessary for the betterment of the article. KeresH 05:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe your image was more reasoned, revert it and list a reason why - as long as you keep in mind that you don't own the article, of course. --147.69.189.99 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Distribution and Behavior Sections

I am a student at Washington University in St. Louis, and I am editing this page as part of an assignment for my Behavioral Ecology course. I have added a well researched section on the distribution and behavior of this butterfly. Abuatois (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I made some grammatical edits and added a few wikilinks. Overall, the article looks good. I would recommend adding information about oviposition, host plants, taxonomy, etc. Ashleynlin (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great job on the addition! I substituted the scientific name with the common name throughout the article, since this is one of the requirements to bring the article to good article status. I also added doi and ISSN numbers to all of your citations. Citations 7 and 9 refer to the same article, so you should make sure you fix that. --Aliciacanas (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey great work on the article so far. The mating and migration section is very well-written and comprehensive. But, to push this article to be in the runnings for a good article I would definitely include sections on the organism's life cycle, taxonomy, etc. I know there's another article on a related Painted Lady, where you mention in your Description section. If things are similar I would still include them in this article, so that it can stand alone better. Also, certain parts of the article need a citation or two. For example, the part in the beginning about the train tracks and butterflies and later on in the distinguishing features section. I believe around one citation per paragraph is usually enough to appease the good article reviewers. Besides that, the grammar and writing look great, there seem to be no errors, good job! Good luck with getting that big GA Jabes808 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the lead is a little too heavy for a lead. I would recommend rewriting it based on the guidelines here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. I also think that you need to have more thorough citations throughout the article. It is generally not the most reliable to cite an entire paragraph with a single citation at the end. If at all possible, it would be great to see an expanded section on the caterpillar and growth stages beyond the few sentences on "Life History". The writing of the article is solid, but there are some difficult concepts that not every leman would be familiar with. I would suggest adding additional Wikilinks. The article looks pretty solid so far, but could definitely use some love. Ashleynlin (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Great job! I added some information that I found to the description and created a new section entitled host plants under the life cycle section. I also fixed some grammatical issues and changed all the headings so that they fit the wikipedia standard of only having the first word capitalized. Wmhua (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.27 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian painted lady. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612004118/http://www.ento.csiro.au:80/Ecowatch/Primary/butterflies/pages/Vanessa_kershawi.htm to http://www.ento.csiro.au/Ecowatch/Primary/butterflies/pages/Vanessa_kershawi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080722012604/http://www.faunanet.gov.au/wos/factfile.cfm?Fact_ID=195 to http://faunanet.gov.au/wos/factfile.cfm?Fact_ID=195

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)