Talk:Carabus japonicus

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 25 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NHanselman (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by NHanselman (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 23:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that larvae of the Carabus japonicus species prey on earthworms up to 400 times larger than themselves? Source: Page 48 of Sota's Evolutionary Biology of Carabus Ground Beetles (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Evolutionary_Biology_of_Carabus_Ground_B/O_JQEAAAQBAJ?)
  "Surprisingly, Ohomopterus larvae seldom failed to attack any size earthworm and could kill earthworms up to 400-fold larger in body weight than themselves."
  • Reviewed:

Created by NHanselman (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

NHanselman (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC).

• No QPQ required. Hook is interesting and the source provided is reliable. My only issue with the article is that the Behavior section is improperly cited. Aside from that, everything seems fine. Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 14:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Davest3r08! I appreciate the review. How can I update the Behavior section so that it is properly cited? NHanselman (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• NHanselman, I'd recommend adding a citation at the end of each paragraph. Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 11:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • All issues have been addressed. You're all caught up, congrats! Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 11:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The image included with this nomination is not of Carabus japonicus and should not be used. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Removed 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I think I fixed it. Is this what you had in mind? NHanselman (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

NHanselman, there's nothing else to do. Your hook has been approved. — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 14:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment

This page is overall very informative. You did a really good job. It’s very interesting to know the experiment that put a male and a female of different species in a box together. For some suggestions, I think you can move the life cycle section up a little, like between the diet and the behavior sections. For other structural improvements please refer to the beetle topic order document. Besides, if possible, I think you could add a little on the interaction of the beetles with human, as they predate on earthworms. Heater4 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought your article was very well written. I just thought it could use some minor grammatical changes where the writing felt a bit choppy. I combined the sentence when you were talking about body dimorphism and the body length between sexes. I also changed some tenses to keep them consistent throughout your writing. A suggestion I would give to you is to use more complex sentences to make your writing more interesting. However, your delivery and explanations were very clear and understandable. Kidsnextdoor954 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)KidsNextDoor954

GA Review

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

Nominator: NHanselman (talk · contribs) 02:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am RecycledPixels. I will review this article over the next few days. I usually take the review in several steps, and not normally in order. Please don't respond or edit this GA review page until I've completed item #7, the "overall assessment" field at the end, which is my sign that I have completed my steps, the ball is in your court, and I will wait for you to respond. That way we won't be disrupting each other with edit conflicts during this process. I will also ping you to let you know I have finished my part. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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.	Without looking too deeply into the article, it is clear that the prose, while grammatically accurate, is far too technical for a general audience. Take a look at the WP:TECHNICAL article for guidance on the level of writing the article should be targeting. There are plenty of examples I could cite, but plucking a few out at random, from just one paragraph: "When in sympatry with the beetle C. dehaanii, C. japonicus is markedly smaller than when it is in allopatry." and "The body length male and female offspring were correlated with the mid-parental length (the sum of the male body length and female body length, divided by two)." and "The regression coefficient for the relationship between these two variables was 0.84 for males and 0.76 for females." and "Additionally, larger females were shown to lay larger eggs without an impact on fecundity."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	*MOS:LEAD The lead section should summarize the article and not include information that does not appear in the body of the article. It should be written in a clear, accessible style. Sizing is appropriate for the length of the article. Citations appearing in the lead section are neither required nor prohibited, but generally the material is cited where it appears in the article body.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A source check has not been performed on this article.
	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).	A source check has not been performed on this article.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	This article has not been evaluated for copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Before reading the article, I compiled a mental list of major topics I felt that an article about an organism should have. What do they look like, including descriptions at different stages of their life cycle; what do they eat; what eats them; where do they live (both the geographic distribution as well as the type of habitiat); what is their life cycle, including lifespan; Conservation and ecology information, are they stable, invasive, threatened, endangered, extinct, etc.; interactions with humans, if any, such as being a pest species. The article does not include any descriptive information aside some mentions of body size differences, but doesn't actually state their body size. There is no information about predators. There is no conservation and ecology information, which could be as simple as a taxobox entry that describes conversation status. No information about interaction with humans, but as a forest dweller that is not unexpected or a problem here.
	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.	Article is neutral, without editorial bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article was recently created from scratch, but there are no recent disputes or edit warring that would trigger a problem under this category.
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.	One image with appropriate CC licensing. Professional-quality photograph sourced as own work on Commons and uploaded by a contributor with only one day of activity and no EXIF data in the photo, but no copyright warnings on their talk page. I checked the uploader's other contributions and am unable to find anything that suggests anything other than that the uploader is a fantastic photographer. Nothing that suggests copyright infringement.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Photograph is of a non-specified Carabus beetle found in the Pakke Tiger Reserve in northeastern India. The article states Carabus japonicus is endemic to Japan.
	7. Overall assessment.	At this point in the review it is apparent that the article is not close to meeting the standards of the Good Article Criteria, so I have stopped the review and suggest that you continue working on the article, then review the WP:WIAGA article to get an idea of the standards that should be met at this level. At that point if you feel that the article has improved to those standards, feel free to re-nominate it at that time. Thank you for your contributions so far. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)