![]() | External morphology of Lepidoptera 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article Lepidoptera to have a summary in a section. Already has one, in fact I'm borrowing text from a section 'Characteristics' from there.
This article to have a lead akin to that of Lepidoptera # Characteristics. Each section of this article on an aspect, such as 'head' or 'antenna', to be reasonably complete.
Additional materials from each of these sections to be placed in generic articles on them for further expansion. For example, additional material on scales in excess of a broad overview to go to Scale (Lepidoptera).
AshLin ( talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Being used by User:AshLin to determine the current state of the article. (Progress as on 24 Nov 2009.)
0. Lead: Draft lead. Provides a reasonable overview of Lepidoptera morphology but will need work on it to meet the implications of the title.
1. External morphology: Draft. Like the lead, it needs work after all other text in its subsections are in. Needs mention of form and shape.
2. Head:
3. Thorax (incl Leg). Incomplete. Needs expansion & diagrams.
4. Abdomen. Needs expansion & diagrams.
5. Wings. Still not comprehensive or complete.
6. Scales. Fairly well covered. Still has gaps. Needs microstructure images or diagrams.
7. Genitalia: Broad overview, needs literature check, more Lepidoptera-specific material, Needs diagrams, images etc.
8. Secondary sexual characters. Incomplete.
9. Morphology of early stages of life. Stub/starts.
10. Eggs. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
11. Caterpillar. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
12. Chrysalis or Pupa. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
13. Footnotes. Last clean-up on 24 Sep 09.
14. See also.
15. References. Last clean-up on 24 Sep 09.
Add your comments below this line.
Some Comments
Shyamal ( talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the part of this article that deals with life-cycles be generalized and merged with Holometabolism. The parts on the specifics of Lepidopterans should be merged with Lepidoptera. The holometabolism page is too short as it is. Having a page like this is like explaining how a restaurant works on a How McDonald's works page.-- FUNKAMATIC ~talk 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stemonitis,
I helped develop an article " Lepidoptera morphology" for Wikipedia. Its much better now. Whatever I could get from my online sources I have tried to add. I can't put my finger on it but I think, not being a biologist, I have probably omitted something important in the sections. May I request a quick overview from you and some specific pointers to help bring up the article to be at least complete in coverage. Other issues could be taken up later at GA time, but any comments are welcome. AshLin ( talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
External morphology of Lepidoptera (earlier Lepidoptera morphology is developing well. We need images of claspers - in fact of the male and female's sexual organs. Since we already have male & female sexual anatomy drawings we are looking for images of rear end of the butterflies. The claspers should be clearly visible, for encyclopaediac value and the female's parts too. Something like seen here : http://www.butterflyfunfacts.com/handpairbutterflymonarch.php.
We also need a hawkmoth pupa so that we can label the parts clearly. Something like this.
Can anyone get such images for the article please? AshLin ( talk) 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I now have a few good photos of a Hyalophora cecropia pupa (I opened the cocoon to determine the sex). Would they be a good model for labeling? I will upload the photos in the morning. Megan| talk contribs 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
An offline Lepidopterist, Peter Smetacek of Bhimtal, India was kind enough to provide a detailed copy-edit as well as to suggest improvements in the text of this article. My thanks to him on behalf of the Wikipedia editors who have contributed to this article and all the readers of this article. AshLin ( talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The head, thorax and abdomen or pygidium of arthropods are tagmata - but in spiders and other chelicerates the head and thorax are combined. Each tagma is composed of segments. Arthropods have at most one pair of appendages per segment. The segments of the abdomen are usually easily seen, although it has usually no appendages - but the spinnerets of spiders are modified appendages. The thorax often often looks like a unitary construction, but the legs show that it is make of segments. The head also often looks like a unitary construction, but its paired appendages with various uses show that the head is make of segments - except trilobites had no appendages on the head. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Some caterpillars which are aquatic (and I only know of the china-mark moths - such as Elophila nymphaeata) have gill like structures on their abdominal segments as they get larger - presumably tracheal extensions or outgrowths. This doesn't seem to have a mention here but might be of interest for completeness. Velella Velella Talk 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Stemonitis ( talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Declaration: I am a minor contributor to the article, and have previously been asked to make suggestions about its content. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Detailed comments will follow shortly. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's a sizeable article, and my initial impressions are very positive. I've only managed to read half of it in detail, but I thought I'd leave you comments on that now, so that you had something to be getting on with. In no particular order, then:
|upright|
in images which are portrait, so that they are the same overall size as the landscape images. {{lang|el|[[:wikt:λεπίς|λεπίς]]}}
). In fact, use the etymology from the section "Scales", which appears to be correct.I'll be back to read the second half before too long. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 07:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Here goes:
Once all these little things have been taken care of, I'll proof-read the whole article and see if anything else crops up, although I'm not expecting to find much.
OK, so it's taking me longer than I expected, and I'm finding more little problems than I expected. Sorry about that. I've been going through in more detail, and I've got as far as the end of the "Head" section. I'll deal with the rest soon, but again, I'll give you my comments so far, rather than keep you hanging on. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 08:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No issues about the time taken or number of improvement points detected. It is a large article on a fairly complicated subject and being an engineer rather than a biologist, I'm sure to miss a number of finer nuances. The motivation to persevere is that this will be a fairly unique free resource on lepidopteran morphology when its done. AshLin ( talk) 12:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that's all. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 07:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed this page at the moment. Will respond over the next three-four days. Thanks for your patience. AshLin ( talk) 12:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Having internet problems hence unable to do much more than email and a reply. Will address the issues you outlined once my connectivity returns. AshLin ( talk) 04:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the review nearing a conclusion? Looks like things have slowed down. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This article now appears to me to fulfil the
GA criteria, and I am happy to pass it. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
08:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is little overwhelming for a middle to elementary school student who wants information on the anatomy of the butterfly. Can I simplify this already good article without it losing its greatness?
![]() | External morphology of Lepidoptera 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article Lepidoptera to have a summary in a section. Already has one, in fact I'm borrowing text from a section 'Characteristics' from there.
This article to have a lead akin to that of Lepidoptera # Characteristics. Each section of this article on an aspect, such as 'head' or 'antenna', to be reasonably complete.
Additional materials from each of these sections to be placed in generic articles on them for further expansion. For example, additional material on scales in excess of a broad overview to go to Scale (Lepidoptera).
AshLin ( talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Being used by User:AshLin to determine the current state of the article. (Progress as on 24 Nov 2009.)
0. Lead: Draft lead. Provides a reasonable overview of Lepidoptera morphology but will need work on it to meet the implications of the title.
1. External morphology: Draft. Like the lead, it needs work after all other text in its subsections are in. Needs mention of form and shape.
2. Head:
3. Thorax (incl Leg). Incomplete. Needs expansion & diagrams.
4. Abdomen. Needs expansion & diagrams.
5. Wings. Still not comprehensive or complete.
6. Scales. Fairly well covered. Still has gaps. Needs microstructure images or diagrams.
7. Genitalia: Broad overview, needs literature check, more Lepidoptera-specific material, Needs diagrams, images etc.
8. Secondary sexual characters. Incomplete.
9. Morphology of early stages of life. Stub/starts.
10. Eggs. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
11. Caterpillar. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
12. Chrysalis or Pupa. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
13. Footnotes. Last clean-up on 24 Sep 09.
14. See also.
15. References. Last clean-up on 24 Sep 09.
Add your comments below this line.
Some Comments
Shyamal ( talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the part of this article that deals with life-cycles be generalized and merged with Holometabolism. The parts on the specifics of Lepidopterans should be merged with Lepidoptera. The holometabolism page is too short as it is. Having a page like this is like explaining how a restaurant works on a How McDonald's works page.-- FUNKAMATIC ~talk 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stemonitis,
I helped develop an article " Lepidoptera morphology" for Wikipedia. Its much better now. Whatever I could get from my online sources I have tried to add. I can't put my finger on it but I think, not being a biologist, I have probably omitted something important in the sections. May I request a quick overview from you and some specific pointers to help bring up the article to be at least complete in coverage. Other issues could be taken up later at GA time, but any comments are welcome. AshLin ( talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
External morphology of Lepidoptera (earlier Lepidoptera morphology is developing well. We need images of claspers - in fact of the male and female's sexual organs. Since we already have male & female sexual anatomy drawings we are looking for images of rear end of the butterflies. The claspers should be clearly visible, for encyclopaediac value and the female's parts too. Something like seen here : http://www.butterflyfunfacts.com/handpairbutterflymonarch.php.
We also need a hawkmoth pupa so that we can label the parts clearly. Something like this.
Can anyone get such images for the article please? AshLin ( talk) 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I now have a few good photos of a Hyalophora cecropia pupa (I opened the cocoon to determine the sex). Would they be a good model for labeling? I will upload the photos in the morning. Megan| talk contribs 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
An offline Lepidopterist, Peter Smetacek of Bhimtal, India was kind enough to provide a detailed copy-edit as well as to suggest improvements in the text of this article. My thanks to him on behalf of the Wikipedia editors who have contributed to this article and all the readers of this article. AshLin ( talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The head, thorax and abdomen or pygidium of arthropods are tagmata - but in spiders and other chelicerates the head and thorax are combined. Each tagma is composed of segments. Arthropods have at most one pair of appendages per segment. The segments of the abdomen are usually easily seen, although it has usually no appendages - but the spinnerets of spiders are modified appendages. The thorax often often looks like a unitary construction, but the legs show that it is make of segments. The head also often looks like a unitary construction, but its paired appendages with various uses show that the head is make of segments - except trilobites had no appendages on the head. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Some caterpillars which are aquatic (and I only know of the china-mark moths - such as Elophila nymphaeata) have gill like structures on their abdominal segments as they get larger - presumably tracheal extensions or outgrowths. This doesn't seem to have a mention here but might be of interest for completeness. Velella Velella Talk 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Stemonitis ( talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Declaration: I am a minor contributor to the article, and have previously been asked to make suggestions about its content. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Detailed comments will follow shortly. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's a sizeable article, and my initial impressions are very positive. I've only managed to read half of it in detail, but I thought I'd leave you comments on that now, so that you had something to be getting on with. In no particular order, then:
|upright|
in images which are portrait, so that they are the same overall size as the landscape images. {{lang|el|[[:wikt:λεπίς|λεπίς]]}}
). In fact, use the etymology from the section "Scales", which appears to be correct.I'll be back to read the second half before too long. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 07:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Here goes:
Once all these little things have been taken care of, I'll proof-read the whole article and see if anything else crops up, although I'm not expecting to find much.
OK, so it's taking me longer than I expected, and I'm finding more little problems than I expected. Sorry about that. I've been going through in more detail, and I've got as far as the end of the "Head" section. I'll deal with the rest soon, but again, I'll give you my comments so far, rather than keep you hanging on. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 08:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No issues about the time taken or number of improvement points detected. It is a large article on a fairly complicated subject and being an engineer rather than a biologist, I'm sure to miss a number of finer nuances. The motivation to persevere is that this will be a fairly unique free resource on lepidopteran morphology when its done. AshLin ( talk) 12:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that's all. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 07:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed this page at the moment. Will respond over the next three-four days. Thanks for your patience. AshLin ( talk) 12:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Having internet problems hence unable to do much more than email and a reply. Will address the issues you outlined once my connectivity returns. AshLin ( talk) 04:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the review nearing a conclusion? Looks like things have slowed down. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This article now appears to me to fulfil the
GA criteria, and I am happy to pass it. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
08:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is little overwhelming for a middle to elementary school student who wants information on the anatomy of the butterfly. Can I simplify this already good article without it losing its greatness?