Talk:Polygonia c-album

Polygonia c-album has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 25, 2018. (Reviewed version).

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

Lepidoptera Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-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): Catejiang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little ambiguous...I presume it means in 1920 there were only two sightings?

I've gone ahead and removed this meaningless statement, seeing as it's been on this page for eight years and noöne's figured out what it means.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Polygonia c-album qtl2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 22, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The comma butterfly (Polygonia c-album) is found in temperate areas of Europe and Asia and is named after a white 'C' shape on the underside of the wings resembling a comma. The wings have a distinctive ragged edge, apparently a cryptic form as the butterfly resembles a fallen leaf.Photo: Quartl

Archive – More featured pictures...

"The form that overwinters before reproducing" and "The form that develops directly to sexual maturity". This really does not make sense. I suppose that developing "directly to sexual maturity" does not mean that the butterfly adult hatches from the egg without a larval stage, but rather that this form lays eggs in the fall and spends the winter in in egg or larval form, but the life history needs to be explained better. 72.177.123.145 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Eric[reply]

The unusual hyphen in the specific name c-album is worth a brief remark. How does it come about?--Wetman (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen (and photographed) this butterfly in Pembrokeshire last year and today, but I don't want to edit the Welsh distribution in the article without formal evidence, so just noting here for reference. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am currently editing the P. c-album page for my Behavioral Ecology class. I have added several sections including Taxonomy and phylogeny, Food resources, Parental care, Life history, Protective coloration and behavior, Mating, Physiology, and Interaction with humans. Catejiang (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the parent-offspring conflict section, it should be made clearer that you are talking about your butterfly specifically. I added some clarifying language to that section in the article. In addition, I think the female mate choice and nuptial gifts sections can be merged into one. I went ahead and merged the two sections on the page, because they are so closely related and it is easier to see nuptial gifts as a factor for female mate choice, since it is mentioned under that header anyway. Other than these brief suggestions, this article was very exhaustive and thorough! Good job! S.srivatsa

Overall the article looks really good! Lots of info in accessible language. I made a few minor edits to wording and added some small descriptions of some terms I thought were unclear. Mllutz (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Mllutz[reply]

This article is very well written and well researched! I think a lot of the sections had really good information in them and were quite thorough. I mostly changed grammar and syntax and added some internal Wiki links. I also fleshed out some concepts briefly that were slightly confusing or unclear. One question I was left wondering in the habitat section was why is this habitat so conducive to the inhabitance by this butterfly? Otherwise, well done! ClaudiaEE (talk) 04:09, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polygonia c-album/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I spend time on this, are you still around on this one? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will make any changes required! Thank you. Catejiang (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Suggest the 'Protective coloration' section wikilinks camouflage; and would suggest using it in the heading instead of PC also, a bit of an old term really. Also link mimicry. Can't understand the "white continuous design on its back" like bird droppings. Where? Does one "undergo" a morph? Maybe reword.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All ok but on layout, I think we could arrange the sections a little better. 3 has 3.1 and 3.1.1 but no other subsections; 4 Parental care and 5 Life history could both go into a chapter on 'Reproduction and life history' say, as could 8 Mating. Perhaps, too, 7 Subspecies could merge into 2 Geographic range and habitat, if you could indicate where the subspecies live.
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 happy, too.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The Camouflage and mimicry section should be expanded to describe "Predators, parasites, and diseases", with the existing material as (part of) Antipredator adaptations.
	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.	Many thanks for the prompt additions. I'm happy to pass the article now, good work!

• Drive by comment: images should be used near the text they illustrate, WP:galleries should not be used when there is room in the article, as is the case here. For example, the image of the eggs should be used where eggs are described, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've sorted that out for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]