![]() | Variable checkerspot was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 14, 2013, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
You made a great addition to the article! You added very relevant information about the Behavior of the Variable Checkerspot. Overall, I think the article is very well-written. I rearranged the images so that the table of contents would not be in the center of the page. You should also think about adding more images to the text. I think pictures of this species during the larval stages would be a great addition. I also added wikilinks throughout the Behavior section.-- Aliciacanas ( talk) 04:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a well-written and clear article. Great Job. However, there are some paragraphs that are un-cited. This should be fixed, as it is one of the requirements for Good Article. Every paragraph must have a citation at the end. In the future, you could expand on the perching and territorial behavior of this butterfly. You could also expand on the evolution of wing coloration as a result of predation and talk about mimicry. Abuatois ( talk) 16:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Broke down the behavior section into 4 distinct sub headings. Npatel92 ( talk) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk ·
contribs)
20:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominator:
Npatel92
I see that you are submitting this article as a GA nomination as part of a school project. I also see that the only changes you have made to the article so far have been a few changes to the headings. I'm afraid this article suffers from a number of shortcomings, and I can't promote it to GA status at this time. I can, however, give you some guidance as to the best ways to improve this article, so that it can hopefully become a GA at some point in the future.
This article does not merit GA status at this time. To fulfill our GA criteria, you will need to move all information from the lead into the article body, and then rewrite the lead from scratch. You would need to check all sources used to make sure the information in the article is fully supported without plagiarism. And you would need to make sure all important information about the species is provided in the article. (For an example of an excellent article on a similar species, see Chrysiridia rhipheus.) If all this is done, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. – Quadell ( talk) 21:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the great feedback Quadell! I looked over at your suggestions and made the following changes to the article: I reworked the lead so it better summarizes the main points contained in the article. I fixed the spelling of the headings and made sure that my article follows the Manual of Style. I cited information that previously wasn't. I went back and reworded information that might be construed as plagiarism from the source. In addition, I made the writing clearer and reworded some confusing parts of the article. I hope this article will be renominated for GA status; are there any other points of concern that must be addressed before it can be a candidate for Good Article? Solon5g93 ( talk) 23:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Variable checkerspot was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 14, 2013, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
You made a great addition to the article! You added very relevant information about the Behavior of the Variable Checkerspot. Overall, I think the article is very well-written. I rearranged the images so that the table of contents would not be in the center of the page. You should also think about adding more images to the text. I think pictures of this species during the larval stages would be a great addition. I also added wikilinks throughout the Behavior section.-- Aliciacanas ( talk) 04:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a well-written and clear article. Great Job. However, there are some paragraphs that are un-cited. This should be fixed, as it is one of the requirements for Good Article. Every paragraph must have a citation at the end. In the future, you could expand on the perching and territorial behavior of this butterfly. You could also expand on the evolution of wing coloration as a result of predation and talk about mimicry. Abuatois ( talk) 16:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Broke down the behavior section into 4 distinct sub headings. Npatel92 ( talk) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk ·
contribs)
20:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominator:
Npatel92
I see that you are submitting this article as a GA nomination as part of a school project. I also see that the only changes you have made to the article so far have been a few changes to the headings. I'm afraid this article suffers from a number of shortcomings, and I can't promote it to GA status at this time. I can, however, give you some guidance as to the best ways to improve this article, so that it can hopefully become a GA at some point in the future.
This article does not merit GA status at this time. To fulfill our GA criteria, you will need to move all information from the lead into the article body, and then rewrite the lead from scratch. You would need to check all sources used to make sure the information in the article is fully supported without plagiarism. And you would need to make sure all important information about the species is provided in the article. (For an example of an excellent article on a similar species, see Chrysiridia rhipheus.) If all this is done, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. – Quadell ( talk) 21:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the great feedback Quadell! I looked over at your suggestions and made the following changes to the article: I reworked the lead so it better summarizes the main points contained in the article. I fixed the spelling of the headings and made sure that my article follows the Manual of Style. I cited information that previously wasn't. I went back and reworded information that might be construed as plagiarism from the source. In addition, I made the writing clearer and reworded some confusing parts of the article. I hope this article will be renominated for GA status; are there any other points of concern that must be addressed before it can be a candidate for Good Article? Solon5g93 ( talk) 23:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)