Talk:Eacles imperialis

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): Sklopedia8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments on the page

Please refer your log on WikiProject Lepidoptera. You wanted some comments so here they are please.

• Nice page! Got the idea it was a new one but you have obviously worked a long time on it. It appears to be almost mature.
• I had thought of leaving all changes to you but felt that you may like a view of how this article could look. Feel free to revert the changes if you want to, I did these just as an example. There are obviously better ways to do things, which both you and I need to discover.
• Do consider arranging all the information under separate headings, even if it is one line only. For example, this article now has range, larva, pupa, adult, foodplants and sexual dimorphism with information under them. WikiProject Lepidoptera suggests a format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera#Format for article.
• You had a mistake in your male moth wikitext given below :-

[[Image:Imperial adult male1 sjh.JPG|thumb|150x|left|Male ''Eacles imperialis'']] .

Can you spot it? I have amended it and moved the images right. Now your images line up. If you are into serious authorship, like me, you have to learn to handle images sooner or later. You can learn how here.

• You would probably have sourced your information from some book, say, the life cycle information, or range, or classification. You need to attribute this text. Do remember that direct biological observations or research can only be put up after publishing as a peer-reviewed article or field note in an appropriate journal. This rule has its pluses and its minuses, but needs to be observed all the same.
• Do add links below, both wiki and external, to richen your 'soup'. Some obvious ones from Wikipedia should not be ignored. A person who is new to biology may land here directly from a Google or Yahoo search. He needs context.

Oh yeah, confused the Saturniids and Sphingids. You're into Sphingids and that stuck somewhere in my mind. Do delete that link.

I think that should cover the major issues. Wishing you all the best in writing more and better articles in Wikipedia. Regards, AshLin 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Snuck in the {{LepidopteraTalk}} template up there. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Range needs fixing

Eacles imperialis is common near where I live, and that is in Belém, Pará, Brazil. I have had them on cachew trees in the backyard. Someone should fix this before a Wolf named Kirby comes along. Cheers, --Wloveral (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

This article as it is is a good start. This species has a very broad range and many subspecies whose respective pages obviously do not exist yet. The content as it is now seems to be at a satisfactory minimum to the general public. This article is a basic overview of the species. There's general information regarding the species as whole, some info about subspecies in the northeastern United States, and that's about it. It needs more specific information, better organization of content, and credible references for verification. The quality of what is presented currently is low due to the lack of references. Adding more information about how widespread this species is, and the several host plants its larvae feed on seems necessary, specifically in South America as there appears to be no information about this species or any of its subspecies there. Some of this information can be put into the individual subspecies pages once they are created. The fact that there is not a single scientific paper cited is a concern, the reference section is an obvious area in need of improvement. Some of the sentences are vague and leave you asking questions. There are many sections that lack a reference entirely leading me to believe they may be biased. The introduction two short sentences and is clearly lacking material, it does not summarize any key points from other sections. The two sentences that are the introduction is understandable.

Overall, this article could use some improvement mostly in the amount of credible references it has and the clear lack of information on its subspecies. Other areas in need of improvement are the specificity of many of the sentences, the introduction section can be expanded and cover key points in other sections, maybe more photos (however the ones that are present appear to be high quality), more information about the species range and preferred host plants within ranges, and some information regarding its status and conservation. Again the lack of credible references and references in general make this page close to an opinion piece. Sklopedia8 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Revised and edited the entire page for my assignment. Removed most unsourced material and added sourced material, several new small sections with content. Hopefully overall more quality content on this page now. Reviewers please let me know what you think of it and what mistakes i might have made. Thank you. Sklopedia8 (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you removed the introduction :) According to Wikipedia style, an article should start with a brief introduction to the subject matter before descending into more specific topics under separate headlines. —Pinnerup (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)