Talk:Lycaena heteronea
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled edit
Hi everyone, I am updating this page for my Wikipedia assignment. Feedback and suggestions would be great. Thank you so much. WAdekunle (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
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): WAdekunle.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Peer review edit
Hello all,
I think your article has a lot of good information. However, there are no citations. This is the most significant issue in this article as citations are required to follow the guidelines of wikipedia and to avoid accusations of plagiarism. Please add the citations in so that we can verify that the information you have added has been retrieved from reliable sources. I also think that, in your life history section, some of the subsections are too short. Specifically, the adult section is very short and does not have much information. This can be fleshed out more. The same comment can be applied to the migration section which contains only two sentences. This is an important aspect of the butterfly and should be discussed in more detail. Overall, good start on the article. vkrishnan2 (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Peer review edit
Hi, Shreenidhi here! This article does a good job of presenting information about various aspects of this butterfly, but it can surely improve with some rewording and rewriting. Considering how much of the information is already on the page, I think it can be on its way to being a good article. I majorly edited the lead, description, geographic range and habitat sections of this article. I mostly edited out information that seemed repetitive or misplaced, and made stylistic edits. One major comment is that article is not appropriately referenced. Although, the references are listed, it is important to have inline citations. Surely, this important but, it can be fixed rather easily. Overall, great potential! Shreenidhipm (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree at all. 39.45.184.208 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- sorry I ment I agree 39.45.184.208 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Yt edit
God daddy werewolf better 39.45.184.208 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)