This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lepidoptera High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Biota of Great Britain and Ireland (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Biota of Great Britain and IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandBiota of Great Britain and Ireland

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Species is nationally scarce in GB—GRM (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about the small eggar's behavior, life history, and conservation status.

Hanna peterman (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that on Wikipedia the standard way of writing section headings is in sentence case. That is, the first word is capitalized and subsequent words are not capitalized unless they include a proper noun. That's explained at MOS:HEADINGS in our Manual of Style.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated --thanks for the pointer! Hanna peterman (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I went in and edited some wording, did some sentence clarification, and added hyperlinks.

Crieber (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your work here was overall well-written and organized in a way that was easy to follow. The changes I made were primarily fixing phrasing and some typos. I also added a few links and corrected some that were already existing if they were not on the first instance of that word. The main thing I want to point out is that certain sections do not have a source cited, such as geographic range and larval tents. I would recommend going back and finding the sources you used for that information and making sure you put those citations into every section of writing. Mnoronha456 (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out those missing citations! I went in and added links. Hanna peterman (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I really enjoyed reading about the moth and I thought you did a great job writing the article, especially the sections on social behavior and life history were detailed and well written. It was especially interesting to learn about how the larvae uses vibrations in silk to communicate! I went in and reworded a sentence in the larval tents paragraph but other then that there was nothing I could find to be fixed. Richywutang2018 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]