Talk:Beetle

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

References[edit]

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

Distribution[edit]

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)

Rework[edit]

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)
  • Under the mating heading it states that "pheromone communication is likely to be important in the location of a mate". First, this is only true for some beetles and it cannot be generalized for all, so I would say the statement is false. Secondly, statements of this sort should have a reference. Barcodeplane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 16 September 2016 (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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

GA proposal[edit]

After months of contemplating, I have finally decided to work on this article and bring it to GA status, four (nearly five) years after its failed nomination. A project on this scale with an important group of insects has already happened once, so I can happily do it again. Mosquito and Sawfly are still on my to-do list. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beetle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Fiddler beetle morphology diagram-2.svg[edit]

This scheme is terrible. The first segment of thorax is assigned as entire thorax, while the other two segments are ignored. Hereby, wings, second and third couple of legs look to like being attached to either abdomen or nowhere, what is complete nonsense. If anyone has objections, i would like to discuss. Otherwise i will just delete this pic from the article and replace it with any more relevant one. --CRTmatrix (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not very good, but the task is difficult as the first segment of the thorax covers the rest, and if the wings are open the elytra cover the legs, as in the Eupatorus photo.
A side view might be better, as in the Cetonia photo. Here we can see elytra, wings, and legs, but the different thoracic segments can barely be discerned in this or many other beetles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
So, I'm sorry for protracting with the response, but thought, this Melolontha scheme is still much better, due to it's demonstrative quality! CRTmatrix (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, go with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)