Talk:Galleria mellonella

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lepidoptera Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Lily1004, Sungjaepark.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

edits

Hi. I think my last comment got removed for some reason so I will just make a short post again! Overall, the article was very comprehensive and easy to follow. In terms of edits, I made some sentence rearrangements, added information on the lead section and added more hyper-links. One suggestion would be to add more information on the habitat section (maybe little bit more about where honeybees reside since Galleria mellonella reside where honeybees do). Also, if there could be little more information about the mating behavior, that would definitely enhance the article's depth. Please let me know if you have any questions! Sungjaepark (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your article was really good! I saw that someone dinged you on not having references for your geographic range, so I went ahead and found information on geographic range and added that back in with more information and references! I also made some minor edits on some sentences that had awkward sentence structure and some grammatical errors. One suggestion would be to kind of clean up the references section-- I saw that there are some repeats of the same source and some inconsistencies in format. I won't change it now because I'm not sure who did those, and who did what for which section. Otherwise, great job! Lily1004 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Overall your article is very well written. I especially found the section on ultrasonic sound generation to be very interesting and informative. I edited your lead section a summary of more of the information included in the article and moved some of the information about pest behavior to a new Pest subsection under Interaction with Humans in the article. I also changed the paragraphs in the Hearing organs section. Do you have any information about adult feeding that you can add? Additionally, I edited some grammar and wording to improve clarity of the article. Finally, I added additional links to other Wikipedia articles. EmilyKathryn (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

extra references

I noticed some extra references which were not from the reflist, and i'm not sure if they're being cited in the article or not. Are they ok to delete? liu.emily 3:01, 3 October 2017 (CST)

That's a judgement call. They aren't hurting anything, so they might as well stay, but if they aren't adding anything, it might be better to remove them. If someone else feels strongly one way or another, they can revert the edit. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Good work! I made minor edits to wording and grammar. I also removed uncited material in the lead section and replaced it with cited information from a new source. I also added a geographic range and habitat section. I would suggest simplifying or explaining some of the technical language you use. For example, I didn't know what propolis or galleriasis were. Also, you have a lot of detail with specific values, such as on the frequency that the butterfly can hear. You may want to streamline this info, removing some of the detail to better convey the general info. Mllutz (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Mllutz[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Federica Bertocchini.pdf

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]