Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Bogong moth

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: Meganav.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia Page

Hi all, I will be editing this page very heavily for the next few days - I will be adding a lot of general content and citations to bring more information about the Bogong moth into the page, as well as address some of the issues previously mentioned. I am also planning on removing uncited content and reorganizing the overview and Etymology sections so that they better fit the overall article, are more relevant to the moth itself, and flow better. I wanted to add more images of the moth in other life stages, but unfortunately cannot find any images that are not the adult moth. jerryshen (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added sections about geographic range, habitat, food resources, behavior, life cycle, migration, enemies, physiology, interactions with humans, and role as a biovector. I reworded the Etymology section to be more relevant to the moth, and removed the Host Plants section, as there were no citations. I added a variety of host plants in the food resources section. I changed the lead section to better reflect these changes. I also changed some of the images in the article, as there was no depiction of gregarious aestivation in caves, and one of the pictures was just another picture of an adult individual. I would like to find more images of other life cycle stages, if possible. Please let me know if there is anything I should change or fix! jerryshen (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very complete and well-written article! I added another theory on navigational aids during migration as well as a photo of one of the larval host plants, but I couldn't think of anything else that article needed. I looked for some information on mating behavior but I couldn't find anything more than what this article already covered. Lilymalcolm (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very well-written article and is very comprehensive. I made a few grammar edits throughout and added to the control of this moth since it is a pest. Great job on this page! [User:Meganav|Meganav]] (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on the article. I added some context to a sentence so readers can get an in-depth view of how far these butterflies can go. [User:WAdekunle|Wadekunle]] (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job on this article! The only suggestion I have for you is to add more images to the life history sections. I think the information you provide could be improved by visuals of the egg and larval stages, or an image of the moth/larva in its habitat. Hanna peterman (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dated information?

I notice that the article includes a fair bit of information about the moths being a bit of a pest, and measures to keep them away from events etc. That was certainly true in the past, but it is no longer the case now. Their pollution has declined extremely sharply in recent years. They are now rarely seen in any significant numbers. You certainly don't see them swarming streetlight like they use to. They are effectively gone. The very end of the article mentions that they are now an endangered species, but the rest of the article doesn't really reflect that modern fact. 121.200.4.166 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I came here to say this. I'm concerned that far there is more mention of them being pests, than there is of their endangered status, and this may leave casual readers with the impression that it's okay to kill them or try to prevent them breeding, etc. I missed the paragraph about this on my first reading. Giving it a subsection title, e.g. "Population decline" would make that much less likely to happen, but I don't know how strictly these articles are expected to conform to a template these days. I'm not qualified to write on the subject, but it would be good if someone who knows about the causes and history of their decline could write more about it, and/or give input about titling that section. Peskydan (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Commentary on Article

Strengths: This entry is fairly incomplete as it lack a good number of the categories included in complete entries. It does have a thorough scientific classification tab under a clear and focused picture, so the moth is at least identifiable through its Wiki. Its description feels more like a collection of fun facts than something that clearly lays out what the moth is, especially when compared to the completeness of other articles. The facts were fun though, and I did learn interesting things such as that it appears in large numbers around buildings in Caberra and that there is controversy in its name’s origin, in that it could be from one of two Aboriginal languages.

Missing Categories: a) Description of its life cycle; many other completed articles have, this is an important part of a moth description and I feel as though it needs to be included b) Range; commonly its own section in other Wiki articles, for the Bogong moth its location is mentioned briefly without detail c) Gallery; there is only one picture of the moth at one stage in its life cycle, so fairly incomplete

Reviewing articles for Lepidoptera project, this moth needs more information. Iginsberg (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subfamily??

"This subfamily are characterised by their stoutly built bodies ...". Subfamily? What subfamily? Nurg 10:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larvae eaten by Indigenous Australians

"Indigenous Australians living in the Australian Alps and the Canberra area are known to have feasted on the moth larvae". If the adult moths go to the Alps and the larvae live on the plains, how did people in the Alps get to feed on the larvae? Is the statement correct? Didn't they eat the adults? And is it correct to refer to "Indigenous Australians living in the Australian Alps"? Didn't they live elsewhere and stay in the Alps temporarily for the main purpose of eating the moths? Nurg 10:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life as Adult

The article states that adults live for 2-4 weeks. This seems unlikely as they need to migrate from NSW/Qld to the alpine areas then back to NSW/Qld to lay eggs. --220.233.33.170 02:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bogong moth. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bogong moth. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I like the rich amount of detail in this article. And the vast amount of pictures is definitely a plus. I think that everything is order to acquire good article status.Sahilmehta97 (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bogong moth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 22:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk - thank you so much for reviewing this article. I apologize for the lateness in responding. I have changed the Etymology section into a Taxonomy section, and added what information I could find on the subject to the article - I could only find information from one source. Jerryshen (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be best to base the structure of this article on that of a similar one that has been promoted previously, such as the butterfly Chrysiridia rhipheus. For another promoted insect, see Aleeta curvicosta.
I have written this article according to the suggested article format in this link for articles under Project Lepidoptera. Jerryshen (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is just a guideline, it is always best to look at what has been accepted by reviewers in the past. Anyhow, it would seem you need a overarching "behavior and ecology" section to group the various sections that are about this. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I have changed the structure of the article accordingly. I have removed the Geographic range and Food resources sections and placed their contents under a Distribution and habitat section. I have created a Behaviour section and placed the Migration, Social Behavior, and Diapause sections underneath that heading. I have created an Ecology section and placed the Enemies and Biovector of Arsenic sections underneath it. I have also moved the order of the sections to match those of nominated butterfly articles, such as Phengaris rebeli and Chrysiridia rhipheus. --Jerryshen (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing this article doesn't have which all those other examples do is a description/appearance section. Now you lump in physical description with behavioural info on their life cycles. This should be split.
  • You are inconsistent in how you present variopus writers mentioned in the taxonomy section. Some get nationality and occupation, some get nothing.
  • You should also give dates for the various events mentioned under taxonomy. Now you do'nt even mention the year it was described.
  • "word bugung, describing the color of the moth" This doesn't help the reader much if you don't tell what the word means.
  • "collected the 'boo.gong fly.'" Why is there punctuation in the name? And the last quotation mark should not come after the full stop.
  • When and why was it moved to another genus than the one it was first placed in? And what's the story about the synonym in the taxobox? Also, the original name should be in that synonym list too.
  • There are some unused images that could be nice to add. This one shows some kind of parasites[1], and this one[2] shows an individual in side view with folded wings, which isn't shown otherwise.
I have edited the taxonomy section to address your points. 'boo.gong' is how the word is presented in the cited website as a translation. I cannot find any information about its movement from one genus to another, nor anything about Euxoa infusa. That was on the Wikipedia page before I began editing it - I have removed it. I have added Noctua infusa and Agrotis spina to the synonym list. For the parasite image, I did not add that because I was not sure what kind of parasites those actually were (and the image uploader is not sure either), and so could not accurately describe them in the image and in the Parasites section. Would it be a good idea to add it? For now I have made these changes, and I will address the other points tomorrow.Jerryshen (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The animals on its antennae are undoubtedly parasites, so as long as you don't identify them further, it would be fine. It will also be a nice image to add because it is a close up of the head (which we don't have otherwise), and someone else might see it here and identify them further. FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I have added that image along with the other image that you suggested. I have also moved all of the description from the Life cycle section into a Description section.Jerryshen (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the lifecycle sections are now so short, it would be better to merge them into one section, as is the case in for example Chrysiridia rhipheus, which is the highest promoted article about a butterfly here. Also because very short sections are discouraged.[3]
  • In most other articles, the physical features of the adult are described first.
  • You should add conversions to all measurements.
  • No description of the limbs, proboscis, eyes, and other features?
  • Words that are linked in the intro should also be linked at their first occurence in the article body.
  • The intro is only supposed to e a summary of the article body, so it does not need citations, and should not have any unique info.
  • "self-mulching soils" What does this mean? You could explain in parenthesis
  • "Both regions contain populations of nonmigratory and migratory moths" Both of this species?
  • You could also explain multivoltine and aestivation.
  • Why is the "Food resources" section in distribution and not udner behavior?
  • You mix UK and US English, you have both "behaviour" and "meters", for example. It should be consistent throughout.
  • Some of the external links seem like they could be used as sources instead.
I have addressed your comments - I have merged the Life cycle sections into one whole section, moved the physical description of the adult first, added conversions, linked words in the intro in the article body, explained self-mulching, specified the regions statement, consistently made everything UK English.
For the other points:
I could find no information about the limbs, proboscis, eyes, and other features beyond what has been mentioned.
The intro does not include any unique information, and Chrysiridia rhipheus has citations in the intro as well.
Multivoltine is explained by the "and so" statement directly after it. I have explained aestivation in paragraphs.
Food resources influence the migration of the bogong moth, as they migrate and aestivate due to lack of food resources during the summer. Do you think that it would fit better under the Behaviour section below the Migration subsection?
That's where I'd expect to find such information at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not added any external links from my own edits - I am unsure what to do with them and have not used them before; should I change them into references?Jerryshen (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If some external links here don't add anything, they can be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You show images of male and female specimens. Are there visible differences?
There are no visible differences - I just used the same image gallery placed there previously. Should I just leave the dorsal/ventral view of one of the sexes?
  • There are still measurements needing conversion, such as "can travel up 600 miles" and "per square metre". You should also be consistent in whether you list metric or imperial units first.
  • It is best not to force pixel size for image thumbnails, as has for example been done with the capeweed image.
  • On the other hand, vertically long images can have the "upright" parameter added to make them smaller.
  • "congregations form to feast on bogong moths as they traveled" Change in tense for some reason.
  • How do fish prey on them? If they fall in water?
The source I used provides no information on how this occurs, and the original source from that source is just a list of stomach contents of caught trout in New South Wales.
  • "was seen outside of one of the aestivation sites of the bogong moth" Since you devote a good deal of text to this, you could state the location?
The source just mentions the site as just one of many sites and does not provide an exact location.
  • "It is an icon of Australian wildlife" Only stated in intro.
I have removed the external links, added/changed the conversions, changed the pixel sizes to be either default or have the "upright" parameter, changed the tense of that sentence, and added a statement about the icon of Australian wildlife in the Food source subsection of the Interactions with humans section.Jerryshen (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much FunkMonk! I apologize for that; in the future I'll make sure to nominate when I am for sure available to respond and edit at the time of nomination. Jerryshen (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope to see you around! FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also very much like this article. Well done. Chickfilkay (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long has humankind known about bogong moths?

Add to the article because it only takes 5 minutes to read. 2001:8003:B132:C300:797D:3143:E9A6:A3C (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bogong_moth