This article is rated GA-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.

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): J.j.lee. Peer reviewers: LucasKatherine, Arajan1, Shreenidhipm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007) species—GRM 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to highlight the need to edit this section. It's been done in a hurry as a cut and paste from Richard South's online book, I think. It's nonsensical out of context of that book (reference to muslin, especially). Hopefully someone will find the time to revise this section. Apologies for not doing so myself - but felt I should, at least, highlight the issue as a priority. Parkywiki (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a student from Washington University in St. Louis and will be contributing to this article of the small heath. I will address the cut and paste job from the Life Cycle section (mentioned above) and will continue to develop new and different sections. J.j.lee (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the overview to include more information and make it an interesting opening for the article, including some facts that I found for other sections. For the Habitat section, I elaborated in more detail on what was already written using as many primary sources as possible. I avoided deleting what was already written unless I could reword or if it had no references. I addressed the other user's concerns about the Life cycle section mentioned earlier by writing the descriptions in my own words from the same and multiple other sources. For Decline in England, I moved it under a Conservation section and added more general information plus citations (that were previously missing). I also included citations for the Subspecies section. For the new information I contributed to this article, I primarily pulled from peer-reviewed primary sources (scientific articles) and followed an outline given by my professor in my behavioral ecology course. New information I added that falls into this outline include: geographic distribution, male territoriality, food resources for both larvae and adults, forms of parental care, parasitism, mating and inter/intrasex interactions, thermoregulation, agriculture effects, and conservation status in the Netherlands. I also included multiple photos throughout the article using the default, built-in image bank, but I couldn't find pictures of the small heath in other life stages. I hope you find this summary of my edits helpful! J.j.lee (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am another student also editing the article. I made a lot of sentence changes to fix errors in comma usage and syntax. Make sure to double check for run on sentences in the future. I removed information that was repetitive, and removed subheadings if it was the only subsection in a section. Also, make sure that you never quote anything directly with quotation marks on wikipedia. I also cut out information that was not specific to the butterfly. For instance, the article spent several sentences explaining what an instar was, despite the fact that it had already linked the wikipedia page for instar. While explaining what happens in the small heath's instars is fine, make sure you keep the information relevant. I would also reconsider your paragraph explaining the costs and benefits of the mating system to the female. The point of this assignment is to write a good wikipedia page, not prove that you've taken behavioral ecology, and it is not specific to the small heath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra.payne (talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) P.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 10, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-07-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

A small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) butterfly in Kampinos National Park near Warsaw in Poland. This species belongs to the family Nymphalidae. It is widespread in Eurasia and north-western Africa, preferring drier habitats than other members of its genus.Photograph: Charles J. Sharp

Archive – More featured pictures...

Hi! This is a great comprehensive article about the small heath butterfly! In the overview, I fixed some repetition about the geographic range of the butterfly since you had two sentences giving the same information. As well, I found a source that talks about how this species is diurnal, so I added that information to the overview. Finally, I fixed a few grammatical errors and added hyperlinks to several words like lekking, calcarous, and nuptial gifts. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arajan1 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a great range of information about the butterfly. The section on mating brings to light interesting aspects of sexual selection such as aggression, lekking and nuptial gifts. The article is well-written and easy to understand. I made slight stylistic edits to the sentences. I removed home range as a sub-section heading because the paragraph was about territoriality. Since, this butterfly of importance to UK Biodiversity action plan, possibly the conservation section can be developed.Shreenidhipm (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am also reviewing this page for a behavioral ecology course. This page has a solid amount of information on the life cycle and mating of this species. More information on behavior could greatly improve this page, and the Physiology and Conservation sections could be added to in future edits. I used one of the sources previously cited in the article, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00310985?LI=true source, to add information to the “Aggression” subsection of the “Mating” section in order to flesh out the effects of temperature on male-male interactions (was only previously referred to in the context of male-female interactions). I also added additional information from source #5 to the Conservation section of the article, adding more information on the effects of elevated CO2 levels on this species. I also made some general grammatical and structural changes to sentences throughout the page. LucasKatherine (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought that this article was excellent and very well written! Its mating section is particularly detailed, clear in its writing, and quite informative. I made a minor grammatical change and added some links throughout the article. I think that finding some images for other stages of the life cycle would be particularly helpful in illustrating the large amount of content you've added to that section. I think that the Territoriality section could either be removed or moved to either the Habitat or Aggression subsection under Mating, as it is quite short and has information that is already covered under the Aggression subsection. However, it is also relevant to the Habitat section - adding it into that section would be helpful as well. I also think the subspecies and similar species could be moved up, as I do not think it flows well being at the end of the article. Perhaps adding it between Enemies and Mating or below the Habitat section would flow better. jerryshen (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Small heath (butterfly)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 10:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 10:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe offer a quick explanation of what "lekking" means in the lead.

• "The small heath" and "the C. pamphilus are used interchangeably throughout the article. While this is not wrong, it would be nice if you stuck to one of the terms, preferrably the common name ("small heath").

• Grammatical error: "Four instar" instead of "fourth instar" in the first sentence under the "Larvae" subsection.

• Is "Enemies" really the best term? Perhaps "Parasitism" and some of the other sections could be put under a new "ecology" section? A lot of the sections in the article are really short so I wonder if all of them need to be their own full sections or if some could be relegated to being subsections.

• What sources are used for the list of subspecies? Only one of the subspecies is sourced.

• I noticed that the last sentence uses Wikipedia itself as a source twice, please replace this with reliable sources from outside of Wikipedia.

• The lead states that other members of the genus Coenonympha prefer habitats that are not as dry, maybe examplify some of these habitats.

• Other butterfly GA articles has a single "Distribution and habitat" section rather than separate "Geographic spread" and "Habitat" ones (examples: Abantiades latipennis, Lulworth skipper).

• Perhaps you should explain what the term "instar" means under "Life cycle".

• "Female small heath butterflies have a wingspan of 37 mm and tend to be larger than males that have a wingspan of 33 mm." (from the "adult" subsection), maybe indicate that the wingspan of 33 mm is the general wingspan of all males (the current wording might make it seem a bit unspecific). Perhaps "...larger than males, which have a wingspan of 33 mm"?

• The "status in the Netherlands" subsection states that "One study shows that the small heath has adapted well to climate change and will continue to survive successfully due to its capability to adapt biologically to altered environments" what is the nature of this capability? How is this butterfly different from other species in this regard?

• Is there any reason why it is advantageous for males to defend their territory in low-temperature conditions but not in high temperature conditions?

• There are a couple of words here and there that you could wikilink;
  • "nectar" in the lead
  • "England" and "Wales" under the Geographic range section
  • Maybe the various types of habitats listed under "Habitat"
  • "Oviposition" in the Oviposition subsection
  • "Pupae" in the Pupae subsection

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig can't find anything above "violation unlikely".
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	As far as I can see, though I only have limited knowledge of this particular butterfly. Awaiting more work on the "Taxonomy" section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Before going further with this review, note that the butterfly articles that have just been mass nominated were part of some kind of student project, and that some of the students didn't return to respond to the reviews. So it's probably good to ping the nominator, J.j.lee, and then wait to see if they show up before continuing the review. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, yeah. Looking at the contributions of the nominator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nicholas_Fry) it appears you are right and that he has not been on Wikipedia since December. What happens if the nominator does not show up? Do I fail the article, put it on hold? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was lucky enough that the nominator of Bogong moth returned after a while, but the nominator of Indian mealmoth never returned, so the nomination was failed after a while. You can wait as long as you want, perhaps send an email to the nominator, because they are not Wikipedia regulars and probably don't check their talk pages much. But if no one responds, you can fail it after whatever amount of time you like. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I'll wait and see if they return and if they don't I'll send an email. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review! I have definitely been keeping track of my articles and will address your comments as soon as possible. J.j.lee (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your input! I added a brief description of lekking in the lead, replaced C. pamphilus with the common name small heath, and addressed the small typo. I wasn't sure how to best incorporate a new "ecology" section and instead created a "threats" section and made two short sections into its subsections. Regarding your comment on the subspecies sources, I did not write that section, but I moved the citation to the beginning of the section so hopefully it is now clearer. I also removed the Wikipedia citations. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions! J.j.lee (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I will read through the article thoroughly and compare it to other butterfly articles that have reached GA status to see if there are any specific structural changes that should be made or information that would be missing.Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this now. There is a new (should also be the final) set of comments. I still feel that the article is split into an overly large number of sections and subsections but it is not really a large problem as I noticed some other GA-butterfly articles (such as Helicoverpa zea and Phengaris rebeli) were similar in this aspect. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm here anyway, I should note that it needs a taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, and hopefully my edits adequately address your comments. I began a taxonomy section, but I have very little knowledge of and experience with taxonomy. I will add as much relevant information as possible soon, but for now, I made the similar species and subspecies into subsections under this new section. J.j.lee (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one of the comments (examplifying some of the habitats of the other species of the genus, since the lead specifically states that this species differs from the others in its choice of habitat). Other than that this is beginning to look good enough. The taxonomy section needs some more work but it does not have to be hugely extensive. Looking at other butterfly GA:s (Abantiades latipennis, Lulworth skipper) you will really only need some brief information on when it was named, by whom and potentially where it was first found as well as repeating its familial, subfamilial etc. classification (with sources). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay! I added more information to the taxonomy section. Hopefully it's enough, since I wasn't really able to find other clearly-stated/cited information. I must have missed your comment about the habitats so I added a few examples and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.j.lee (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! You made a mistake on the nationality and profession of Linnaeus (Swedish botanist/zoologist, not British entomologist) which I have fixed. The taxonomy section is about as extensive as the one in the other GA butterfly article Lulworth skipper. It would be nice to have some explanation of what the scientific name means, but I can understand that this is difficult to find and going by the other articles this does not appear to be strictly necessary. Maybe you could just quickly note that it is classified within the genus Coenonympha ("one of X amount of species in the genus Coenonympha) and what tribe and family it is placed in (I know this is in the infobox, but having it sourced in the taxonomy section is a plus). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, careless mistake. Thank you for catching that. I expanded the taxonomy section as you suggested. My only slight concern is that number of species in the Coenonympha genus. I couldn't find a specific count so I simply counted the species listed in one of my sources. J.j.lee (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ichthyovenator, not sure if you saw my comment above, but hoping this one gets to you! J.j.lee (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your previous message. I think the taxonomy section looks good now, as does the article as a whole. I thus decided to pass it, congratulations on producing a good article! Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! J.j.lee (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]