From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Beetle was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 25, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed


I'm not sure on this one, but I think there are way to little references. This article has 78 references, while articles of similar length, maybe a tiny bit longer (such as Bird) have well over twice that amount. I think there should be more references until this article could be nominated as a good article. Gug01 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01


The current article has the following two sentences.

  • "They are found in all major habitats, except marine and the polar regions." (Para 2 of Overview) and
  • "Coleoptera are found in nearly all natural habitats, including freshwater and marine habitats,…" (Para 2 of Distribution and diversity).

Does anyone know more about marine habitats? I've found this New Zeeland government page which says "Few species are true marine-dwellers, but several inhabit rocky shores or sandy beaches". Few species sounds like more than no species to me. Thehalfone (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is: there is a problem with the article. There are a few hundred Adephagan species of beetle that are truly freshwater-dwelling, and are even found in subarctic conditions, but they are not oceanic. So please change the sentence Para 2 of Overview to say "They are found in all major habitats, except for the ocean and polar regions." Also, please change the sentence Para 2 of Distribution and diversity to say "Beetles are found in nearly all natural habitats, including freshwater but not marine habitats . . ." Gug01 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


I have noticed this article has been listed as a vital article, and it's very comprehensive at its current state. However, it will need some work;

  • Are overview sections appropriate for an article?
  • I'll try and find a couple of references to increase the quality of the article
  • We need an etymology section, unless there are some sentences in regard to that subject
  • Consider fixing the 27 citation needed tags
  • Lead does not summarise the entire article and it should be expanded
  • Perhaps we should look at the Bird article and possibly model this article from it?
  • I'll try and find some more info about the eusocality and distribution
  • Copyedit is in mind, even if the article seems reasonably well written. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Beetle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)