|WikiProject Lepidoptera||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland||(Rated Start-class)|
This article was very interesting, specifically the mating and folklore sections. The wingspan section in the overview was very specific and should be moved to the “physiology and description” section. The last sentence of the overview should be moved toward the beginning because it is a rather general statement. Adding a couple more pictures, like showing the sexual dimorphism, could be beneficial as well. Overall, well done! Mperumattam (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Behavioral Ecology Peer Review
The Wikipedia page looks well organized, and follows Wikipedia Style guidelines. The “additional species which may be included in Hepialus” and “species previously included in the genus Hepialus” do not seem to be cited with the corresponding footnotes. I would perhaps delete these sections, if the sources are not there. I did some minor changes, to the article and edited briefly for clarity. In the lead paragraph, I un-bolded ghost moth in the last sentence, since it is already bolded in the first sentence. I do think the lead paragraph should be cited accordingly with the correct sources, even if this information is repeated throughout the rest of the article. I did my best and cited three corresponding sources in the lead paragraph. I also un-hyperlinked some words like erratic, deaf, shortwave and roots since these terms are common enough for the reader to understand and not really necessary to understanding the moth’s description. I also deleted hyperlinks that were used twice, like larva and roots. The “recorded food plants” should also be cited as well. Sarahxyang (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Behavioral Ecology Class
Could someone elaborate on the "preyed upon by bears" statement made in the first paragraph just trying to make sure it isn't merly a joke, or if it is in fact, true. ~Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm unsure how to interpret this:
- This species is now considered the only species in the genus Hepialus which previously included several other species.
Does this means that other Hepialus species have been reclassified into other genera, or that they are extinct? --Saforrest 16:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Other species previously classified as Hepialus have been reclassified into other genera - I will try to make text clearer! Richard Barlow 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
On another note, be nice to add this tidbit from the OED: otter moth n. now rare the ghost moth, Hepialus humuli (family Hepialidae).
1804 Med. Jrnl. 12 229 Hop yards might be preserved from the honey~dew..and from the *ottermoth, by being covered with stones. 1909 Daily Chron. 26 Aug. 4/7 What is left of the green shoots by the yellow flea becomes the prey of the red spider or the otter moth. -rudyard (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Peer Review for Class
Hi, great moth! I thought your article was well written and interesting. I made a few grammar edits throughout the article and rearranged the lead section a little bit so it flowed better. I also added a picture of a male and a female ghost moth side by side to help illustrate your sexual dichromatism section. I rewrote the lekking section a little bit so it didn't obviously mention the one scientific article. I personally prefer Wiki articles to not mention research groups or papers by name because it makes them easier for the layperson to read, but that's just my opinion so feel free to change it back! I was a little confused about the purpose of the "species previously included in Hepialus" and "additional species which may be included in Hepialus" sections. I didn't think they added any information to the article and the boxes weren't really about this species of ghost moth so I just deleted them. Great job and cool article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullenm05 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)