Talk:Helicoverpa zea

Helicoverpa zea 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.
Review: April 25, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lepidoptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 2009-01-22 to 2009-02-12. Further details are available here.

Yennguyen356 (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what's the adult called?

Plenty of multiple names for the larva. What about the moth stage?

Edits

I added much more information, covering a broader range of behaviors and adding to other features of the life of this moth --Vpandrangi (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I deleted redundant information in the introduction and added a large of amount of information and added many new headings to cover the new material. --Vpandrangi (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the titles in the Survival section from "Interfamilial predation" and "Defense mechanisms" to "Larval predation" and "Avoiding predation" respectively. "Interfamilial predation" did not discuss any predation occurring within a family, and "Defense mechanisms" did not discuss the responses of the moth to aggression as much as it discussed avoiding this aggression entirely. Danoue92 —Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I changed two in-text citations to the correct format, and made a few very minor edits. Here are some things that could be improved:
Under Life History and Life cycle, the larvae and pupae sections could be combined since the pupae section is only two short sentences. In the adult and larvae sections, parts of the description of these two stages are redundant with the description section above. It may be best to have this information in one place. Finally, in the introduction it is mentioned that the adult moth acts as a pollinator. It might be nice to have a section that describes its role as a pollinator, and which plants it interacts with at that stage. Abuatois (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening section, the details appear to be all over the place, and the picture that is mentioned should have a caption under it rather than “the picture to the right,” given that there are two pictures. Furthermore, the mention of Helicoverpa armigera seemed irrelevant to the page, and therefore I deleted it. The “Identification” section was deleted all together since the “Life Cycle” section mentions the same details, and the “Life Cycle” section was moved up as the first section of the article. The “Human Impact” heading was changed to “Pests”, and the opening paragraph was moved so that it is part of the “Control” section since it mostly talks about the control of the pests. In the “Natural history” section, the main heading was deleted so that each subheading is its own main heading. Under “Natural Enemies,” a grammatical error was fixed. In the “Life Cycle,” section under “Larvae,” the Boyd citing should be made into a reference. In the “Behavior” section under “Diapause,” a grammatical error was fixed. Finally, the “Flight behavior” was put as a subheading to “Pheromone Production” since it is talking about the flight behavior as a consequence of pheromone production. Morganclem (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great article overall. You did a good job using wiki links, especially the links referencing other sections in the article. I also liked how you referenced topics early that you elaborate on later in the article. I made a few minor word changes to make a couple sentences more clear, and also made Interfamilial predation and Flight behavior their own subheading (not under Feeding and Mortality). Jenniferreed1510 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)JenniferReed1015[reply]

Your contributions to this page are excellent. The sections on behavior are well written and very informative. The additional sections are great as well (Distribution and Life cycle). I also liked how you added pictures to make your article more appealing to readers. I think the only problem right now is with the lead section. It needs to summarize your article more. I was given this link upon receiving my good article review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. I find it to be a bit long and arduous to get through, but overall it gives a very detailed description of what they are looking for for good intro section. Morganclem (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

71.241.70.24 (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! All of your information and subheadings are very straightforward. The only thing I noticed was that there was no description section, but you mention this information under life cycle. I think this is fine, but maybe something to think about. I also agree with the comment above on the lead section - this could use more summary and what you are going to go over in the rest of the article. I've also noticed some other good articles have maps on their distribution, so this may be a good addition. Jenniferreed1510 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments

I fixed some minor grammatical and stylistic mistakes and made some sentences more clearer. These were pretty minor and overall your contribution is very good. I would suggest improving the introduction a bit, though. It focuses on the larvae and its behavior instead of giving an overview of the animal at large. Solon5g93 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I'm happy to take on this interesting article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Ok; passes spot checks on plagiarism.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: is too short. Please extend to summarize contents of article. Layout: ok; Weasel: ok; Fiction: n/a; Lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Doesn't matter for GA, but it would be desirable to format all refs in cite templates, right now some are and some aren't.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Quotes: n/a; facts: ok; blp: n/a
	2c. it contains no original research.	no sign of it
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	ok
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	ok
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	ok
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no sign of any issues
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	all images from Commons
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	ok
	7. Overall assessment.	A concise and interesting article, properly written and cited.

Comments

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helicoverpa zea. 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/20090209184546/http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/fieldcrops/insects/corn_earworm/index.html to http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/fieldcrops/insects/corn_earworm/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]