Talk:Samea multiplicalis
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hanna peterman. Peer reviewers: Sjwang312, Catejiang.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Editing article for Behavioral Ecology class at WashU
[edit]I added information about the moth's behavior, life history, and use as a biological control agent. Suggestions are welcome! Hanna peterman (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
20:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Sjwang312 (talk)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== Peer Reviews ==
I thought that the sections and information all flowed well, and the connection between S. multiplicalis and their host plants/food resources was described clearly. I edited some of the footnote citations to match Wikipedia conventional style and moved a few sentences between sections. I think that adding more information into the lead paragraph about the appearance of the moths would add to the introduction, which is currently mostly about host plants. If there are any distinctive features that allow one to distinguish the moth, that might work well in the lead as well. One of the questions I had after reading the article was in the "Host plant" subsection of "Food Resources." It mentions that S. molesta plants are all clones and are genetically identical before going on to the next subsection. I think a comment following the clone fact about how it is relevant to the moth's choice in host plant would add some context. Also, it seems like there is a lot of behavioral information about the their interaction with plants, so adding a section about other types of behavior (mating, migration, etc.) would be interesting to see. Other than that, I thought the article conveyed the information clearly and was interesting to read. Catejiang (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that your additions were done well. I added some hyperlinks to a couple of word and phrases throughout the article.a. I also created a new section named “C.salviniae and S. multiplicalis” so that the information is clearer, and since it's not really related to human interaction as much. I would also suggest adding an egg section in “Life History”. sjwang312
I thought that this was a really well written, thoroughly researched article. I edited some grammar and syntax for readability and added more internal wikipedia links. I agree with Catejiang about the introduction- I think adding more information could be beneficial as many people will likely not read past this section. I think the role S. multiplicalis plays in the biological control of S. molesta is also not super clear and could benefit from some elaboration and clarification. Overall, great work! ClaudiaEE (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)