Talk:Lulworth skipper

(Redirected from Talk:Lulworth Skipper)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Casliber in topic GA Review
Good articleLulworth skipper has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Importance rating

edit

This is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007) species—GRM 15:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Upgrading / clarifications

edit
  • "Due to their likeness to the rays around the eye of a peacock's feather, these are often known as 'sun-ray' markings, and they can faintly appear on males." — what have "peacock's eye feathers" got to do with "sun rays"?
  • I'm not sure, but it's referred to in two of the books I have on Lulworth Skipper's.
  • Need to mention this is a UK BAP species
  • What about physical description of caterpillar, pupa and egg?
  • Can you source any additional images to liven up the entry?
  • I could try, but it's been an awful summer here in Dorset. I haven't had any oppurtunity to actually photograph any!
  • Cross-reference detailed taxonomy on Wikispecies?
  • What do you mean by cross-reference? I'll take a look at its taxonomy there, I quite forgot WikiSpecies existed to be honest.
  • What is the system used for vulnerability/conservations status? (Add to taxobox)
  • Quite honestly, I'm not sure. I'll find out.
    • I am not sure this is ready for an upgrade to "B" class just yet. Maybe ask on Leps project page for further peer review...?

GRM (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —GRM (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lulworth Skipper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am reading through now and am making straightforward changes as I go. Please revert any where I inadvertently change the meaning. Queries below. Also, don't automatically do what I suggest - if you think otherwise please say so and we can discuss. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • With a wingspan of 24–28 millimetres, females being larger than males, the Lulworth Skipper is considered a small butterfly; it is the smallest member of the Thymelicus genus in Europe and is among the smallest butterflies in Britain.... - this paragraph is a little repetitive - I'd lose the the Lulworth Skipper is considered a small butterfly segment and connect the first bit to the description somehow.
  • In the Taxonomy section, anything about closest relatives or subspecies etc.?


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:  
Manual of Style compliance:  

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:  
Citations to reliable sources, where required:  
No original research:  

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:   - okay, I will assume good faith that there is not really much out there accessible. This does happen alot once one moves away from warm-blooded vertebrates :)
Focused:  

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:  

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):  

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  

Overall:

Pass or Fail:  

We're almost there - the only things I'd add if possible are some more on taxonomy/related species, the meaning of the specific name (after Actaeon?), and if there is any info on parasites, predators etc. i.e. what birds eat it, any wasps etc. which parasitize it. If none can be found then that's ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just looked through all of my sources and some online, and can't find any information on the areas you mention. Sorry. I'll try and get hold of some other sources another time, but I can't promise anything soon. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Update - for GA status, I'll now presume what we have is what we have and represents decent summary of what we have on the little critter. GA passed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply