Talk:Luna moth/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I see a couple citation needed tags and a couple grammar things just glossing over, looks pretty good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Citation needed tags cleared.David notMD (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• If the common name is "luna moth," why isn't the article called "Luna moth"? Also, should the "L" in "Luna" be capitalized, it's kinda inconsistent?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Good question. The article was "Actias luna" when I started on it, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) suggests a preference for the common name ("Luna moth"). I will go through the name change process, with redirect from Actias luna. If the name change, then appropriate to capitalize "Luna." David notMD (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You can just go on over to WP:RM and put it under Technical requests and cite WP:Common names. It should go through pretty quickly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I put in for a RM. Note: when I changed a name for another insect myself rather than submit a RM, the name change went through, but the page view statistics were not transferred. That was for "Brown-tail" to "Brown-tail moth". David notMD (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Name change completed for article and Talk.

• When you say "sonar detection" do you mean "echolocation"?
  • The articles cited used "sonar" but I agree that echolocation is more appropriate, as Sonar is about the human invention. Replaced. Fixed a DAB, so Wikilink is to Animal echolocation. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• This seems like a pretty sizable article so maybe the lead could be expanded to 2 paragraph?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. added new content to beginning of second paragraph. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• You're gonna wanna use {{convert}} in the Description section, and you switch from singular to plural mid-sentence sometimes. Also, you should stay consistent with singular/plural as much as possible throughout the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert applied to all measurements. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• You accidentally used hyphens (-) instead of dashes (–), so it should be "...colorful dots–yellow or magenta–may..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hyphens replaced with dashes. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• You might wanna use {{cite}}   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not clear of the intent of this request. David notMD (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Take refs no. 7 and no. 1, they're not formatted correctly, which would not happen if the article consistently used {{cite}}   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Used CITE the change format of ref 1,7 and the newly added 11. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Could you wikilink all the terms (like instar, cocoon, vestigial, imago, etc.)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought I did most of those, but will check, and will make the Wikilink for the first use of the terms.

I think I got them all. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You did not, I see instar isn't, aldehyde isn't, cocooning is twice, imago is twice. Go over it again   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to say "According to an older description (Packard 1914) cited in the Univ. Florida article"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Deleted mention of ref that is within a ref I have cited. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Why is "Energy is from fat stores created while a caterpillar" in parentheses?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No reason. Parens removed. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• There are a lot of tiny sentence that could be merged to form a bigger sentence (like "Eyes are black" is a very small sentence)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Will review once all other changes addressed. Personally, I feel that short (simple) sentences provide a break for the reader. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s a careful balance   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• You forget to use "and" a lot   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "and" inserted appropriately.David notMD (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• You have some sentence fragments here, I see last sentence of the Description section
  • Checked for and repaired sentence fragments. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There was a bit too much duplication of content in the Description and Life cycle sections. Minimized. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Note for future GA’s, the reviewer will cross off tasks as they are completed just to verify it is in fact resolved and done so correctly. Here, you can cross of the tasks, I don’t usually cross them off because that’s too much work. I remember my first GA where I crossed off the tasks as I did them and then the reviewer got mad :/   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • My last GA, I was crossing off tasks and the reviewer did not quibble. Going forward, I will ask first. David notMD (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I have addressed all of this (first?) set of requests, except for a few CNs. Please review article, and reply with bullets showing what is still needed. David notMD (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I’ll get there later today   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• • A copyright/plagiarism check now shows a violation likely! What happened was that I wrote the Description section, and it has since been copied verbatim into http://animalia-life.club/other/luna-moth-scientific-illustration.html That site acknowledges the source as Wiki info and links to this article. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember when that happened on bottlenose dolphin   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think Etymology should be its own section as opposed to a subsection   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Done David notMD (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think it's entirely relevant to list other moths named after gods   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I really liked finding and sharing this information, as it provides examples of several North American moths being named by European naturalists, two by Linneaus and three in style of. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It takes up half of the Etymology section and seems very tangential, it spends more time explaining Greek mythology than the Luna moth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• When starting a new paragraph or section, you should probably say "Luna moth" instead of "it" on the first mention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Done
• You don't use spaces with em dashes, and when you open an interrupter with a dash you have to close it with a dash, not a comma   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • endashes now without the extra spaces, and in pairs. Also, now dashes between numbers (4–7) instead of hyphens (4-5). David notMD (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• You might also wanna talk about habitat in the Distribution section (like do they live in forests or open shrublands, etc.?)
  • Done, but in the Life Cycle section rather than Distribution. The larvae feed on tree leaves from a preferred list of tree species, so this is where the females will be, waiting for males to show up and mate. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think you absolutely have to say univoltine, bivoltine and trivoltine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Inclusion of the terms here, with univoltine providing the Wikilink to Voltinism, gives people who follow the link an education in reproduction strategy. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Also I don't think ecloses is absolutely necessary as even the place it links to is titled "Emergence"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "eclose" deleted. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Stray comma in the Imago (winged) section, second sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sentence revised. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think quoting the study is necessary, just summarize the quote   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The Millar study now paraphrased instead of quoted. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A few still to comply to, and still, the remaining CNs. David notMD (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

CNs cleared. The one new ref for Polyphemus moth does state that luna moth pupae secrete cocoonase to weaken the cocoon silk. David notMD (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all bullets from the first and second set, including using CITE for improperly formatted citations. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to use {{cite}} for all refs, I see more that aren’t formatted correctly. Also, websites need access-date parameters. If you don’t know the date it was first accessed, just put down today’s date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Cite and access-date applied to refs 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16. David notMD (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• I see you did some rearranging, which is fine, but you need to go over all the wikilinking again   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had done 1,7-11,15 and 16, but had missed 5 and 6. Those now in cite format. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, still, everything in Etymology after "A National Moth Week article" seems really tangential and it doesn't really productively add to the article, seems more about Greek mythology and Johan Christian Fabricius is just very unrelated to the whole thing, but if you're still persistent, I can ask for a second opinion to establish some consensus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please get a second opinion on this. In my opinion it makes clear that naming this moth species after a classical goddess was not a one-off. It provides a historical context. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion down here for half the current Etymology section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Content after "several other North American giant silk moths" runs off topic, and suggests something not stated in refour-giant-silk-moths-and-ancient-mythology. nationalmothweek.org probably doesn't rate a mention, (though they deserve national holidays).I was reviewing the article and was noting this when I saw the 2nd opinion request. cygnis insignis 05:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I yield to majority. Section shortened. David notMD (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think "Legs are the same maroon to brown color" is necessary   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Deleted legs sentence, also eye color sentence, as the info is obvious from the photos. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• You should probably mention that giant silk moth is the common name of Saturniidae on first mention, and wikilink Satuniidae on first mention, and then use "giant silk moths" when referring to Saturniidae   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. Also cleared a citation needed in Larvae subsection, as the information on weeks as larvae affected by climate came from website of commercial breeder, not a published source. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• The Predation, parasites and diseases section seems really drawn-out compared to the rest of the article. I can rewrite the first paragraph as, "When threatened, giant silk moth larvae produce audible and ultrasonic warning clicks by rubbing serrated mandibles together, before regurgitating intestinal contents as a last-resort predator-deterrent."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Reduced from 609 to 343 words. The three long paragraphs shortened. The one sentence about owls deleted, as it felt out of place. David notMD (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "There was no chemical analysis to determine whether the active substances were derived from plants the larvae ate, or synthesized de novo" and where it says some other giant silk moths don't give warning clicks are really relevant. For the latter, you could just start off the paragraph as "Like some giant silk moth larvae..." and leave it. Instead of saying "The regurgitated material was confirmed as being a predator deterrent against several species," you could just say the first time you mention regurgitated material that it's a predator-deterrent instead of giving it an entire sentence. It's still unnecessarily wordy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at the paper and the paragraph, a quick comment after considering this [before coffee]. Actius luna is used in the comparative study of the research subject, so there is, of course, a lot of irrelevant discussion. What has been presented in our article is somewhat relevant though it may need to be refined, facts gleaned with their context. The absence of research on appropriation of phytotoxins or novel agents in the regurgitant is a qualification to what is known about their suite of defence systems, it is a known-unknown that might skew their investigation of 'clicking' as "aposematic signalling". cygnis insignis 04:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it just needs to be reworded, there's a lot of unnecessary padding and repetition that's effectively acting as page filler right now is what I'm seeing, like, "The regurgitated material was confirmed as being a predator deterrent against several species," and, "The results of this experiment support echolocation distortion as an effective countermeasure," though noteworthy, don't really need their own sentences. For the third paragraph, sentence 2 is implied in and thus unnecessary with sentence 3; sentences 4, 5, and 6 describing the study procedures I don't really see as noteworthy; and sentence 7 repeats sentence 1.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Further reduced, to 288 words. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

For the third paragraph, only the first 2 sentences are necessary. You don't typically have to described what a study did (and if you do, maybe like "...a study that clipped the tails off moths to test for likelihood to bat predation..." and move right on to conclusion). You can use all the extra space to explain how long tails distort echolocation (I'm still confused)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Are there any major predators in particular? You said bats and I know you deleted owls so I'm wondering if it's just that basically everything eats Luna moths or not?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Tuskes, Hall/UnivFL and Kellogg are vague about other predators and parasites. Clearly, if females are laying 200 eggs and a constant population calls for two survivors to mate and continue, there is 99% loss to various causes. Hall/UnivFL states insect parasites and "...a variety of invertebrate and vertebrate predators." Kellogg mentions a few instances of parasite flies other than C. concinnata. I expect that birds eat the larvae, but there is no published work on that. Mice, chipmunks and other small vertebrate omnivores would probably tear open cocoons and eat the pupae, but again, no literature. Literature does not mention diseases, which is why I took that out of the section title, even though it is well known that some moth larvae are killed by viruses. Nothing on what might eat eggs. Here, the fact that eggs are scattered suggests there is egg predation. In contrast, gypsy and brown-tail moths lay all eggs in one place and cover the egg mass with protective materials (for brown-tail, poison-containing hairs from the female's body). David notMD (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Was the scattering eggs thing in the source?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Both Tuskes and and Hall/UnivFL state eggs laid singly or in small groups/clusters. Those are the citations. David notMD (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean the part about it being an anti-predator behavior, that'd be notable as well's the comparison between the gypsy and brown-tail moths   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in the literature on what percentage of Luna moth eggs lost to predators, or for that matter, any of the giant silk moths. Most of the website literature is by commercial growers, so they protect eggs, larvae, cocoons, emerging adults. David notMD (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a set percentage, just a general idea of the size. Some? Many? Most? A few? A professional grower could be considered a reliable source, all your sources don't necessarily have to come with a doi or ISBN, just remember to make sure they seem reliable and verify they genuinely know what they're talking about. Also, back to the original comment, what exactly was the reason you deleted the owls part?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

OWLS: My reason to delete: the only evidence was a casual observation made in Kellogg (2003): "In spring 1999, the ground below an unidentified owl roost on campus was regularly littered with numerous saturniid wings, including A. luna, A. polyphemus and C. regalis." I am leery about generalizing this to stating that owls (species?) are predators of Luna moths. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

EGG PREDATION: Other than the already cited references, the only information sources are professional growers/sellers. They mate moths inside netted cages, then transfer the females to the inside of a large paper bag to lay eggs. That is why one of the photos in the article (there before I started on it) shows a large number of eggs on a brown paper backing. I have exchanged emails with Bill Oehlke (from External sources) to learn if he could provide information on what goes on in the wild, but he had nothing to add. David notMD (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Optional suggestion. I read somewhere that they are grown commercially, can that be mentioned in the article? cygnis insignis 21:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not for silk production, but there are growers who will sell eggs or cocoons, to collectors, but also to schools that want these as a science teaching tool. Two of the three External links are to one of those. I am leery about trying to incorporate into article because not possible to reference except to commercial sites. David notMD (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Things left to do

• Second paragraph of Predators and parasites, only the first 2 sentences are relevant, the other ones are either repetitive or not-noteworthy discussion of study procedures. Instead of talking about procedures, talk about how long tails distort echolocation, I'm still confused how that works   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Clearer explanation of success for tails distracting attacking bats (bats grab at tails, moth escapes). David notMD (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Third paragraph of Predators and parasites, only the first 2 sentences are needed, the other ones are repetitive page filler   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Third paragraph shorter. David notMD (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you hit the Publish change button? I’m reading it and absolutely nothing has changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Last paragraph before and after = 19 words shorter. (See below.) The bats paragraph now states that with intact hindwings, the attacking bats often grabbed the tails, allowing the moths to escape. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

BEFORE: The parasitic fly Compsilura concinnata native to Europe was deliberately introduced to the United States throughout much of the 20th century as a biological control for gypsy moths. Due to its flexible life cycle, it can parasitize more than 150 species of butterflies and moths in North America, including Luna moths.[4][5] One field trial placed second through fifth instar Luna moth larvae on hickory tree leaves in several test areas. These were then collected and returned to the laboratory. Four parasitoid species emerged, the most common being C. concinnata.[6] Researchers concluded that this parasitic fly, deliberately introduced to North America to provide biological control of gypsy moths, had collateral damage on native moth species, including the Luna moth.[4][6]

AFTER: The parasitic fly Compsilura concinnata native to Europe was deliberately introduced to the United States throughout much of the 20th century as a biological control for gypsy moths. Due to its flexible life cycle, it can parasitize more than 150 species of butterflies and moths in North America.[4][5] One field trial placed second through fifth instar Luna moth larvae on hickory tree leaves in several test areas. These were then collected and returned to the laboratory. Four parasitoid species emerged, the most common being C. concinnata. The researchers concluded that this parasitic fly caused collateral damage to Luna moths.[6]

• The parasitic fly Compsilura concinnata native to Europe was deliberately introduced to the United States throughout much of the 20th century as a biological control for gypsy moths. Due to its flexible life cycle, it can parasitize more than 150 species of butterflies and moths in North America.[4][5] One field trial placed second through fifth instar Luna moth larvae on hickory tree leaves in several test areas. These were then collected and returned to the laboratory. Four parasitoid species emerged, the most common being C. concinnata. The researchers concluded that this parasitic fly caused collateral damage to Luna moths.[6]

What's in red is unnecessary, just add onto the second sentence, "...including the Luna moth," and end it. I'm reading the second paragraph, there is no change. You did not explain in-text how long tails disrupt echolocation. The text "Experiments were conducted with Luna moths with intact wings and with the tails removed. With intact wings, a majority of the attacking bats contacted the hindwing tails rather than the body of the moth; only 35% of intact moths were caught versus 81% for those with clipped tails. The results of this experiment support echolocation distortion as an effective countermeasure," is unnecessary. If you're describing a study, use a few words as possible and go right to the conclusions. I'm not even sure it's notable to write so much about the study if it's only supposed to say "long tails disrupt bat echolocation." All that's notable is here is that the hindwing tails are used by moon moths to disrupt bat echolocation. Write about that, not a study about that.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)