Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chrysiridia rhipheus

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:13, 4 July 2008 [1].

Chrysiridia rhipheus

edit

Self-nomination: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I just put a lot more information in, and feel it is ready (and want to know how to make it ready if it isn't). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments...ok...let's have a look-see..... (I'll add comments below, and may change some obvious no-brainers. Advise or correct if I inadvertently change meaning). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move all the alternate scientific names in the lead to the taxonomy section. They clutter a nice lead and are not essential, except maybe what it was first described as.
I thought they were fine before they were bolded, but now its true they "clutter". They're removed.Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the 3rd sentence of the lead as the 2nd, and place the material about lack of pigment after' that for natural flow (i.e. here's this pretty moth, but it ain't pigment which makes it colourful)
Done. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should be two paras. I will look for some more info to add.
Added life cycle info to lead. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is it, with Urania, sister-taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides. - erm, something get left out here? I can't follow it.
Changed to "The genus is, with Urania, sister taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides." Clearer I think. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..is produced by the alliance of two optic phenomena: - 'alliance' makes me think of battles. I know what you mean I am trying to think of an alternative.
How about 'union'? I know it also has a political connotation, I don't care which it is, as long as the meaning is there. (For finding synonyms you can try wiktionary, e.g. wikt:alliance). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. alliance → conjunction. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is if the insects possess polarization and color vision. - a bit abrupt, presumably you mean 'This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and color vision, which is currently unknown (?).'
Yes, that's what I meant. Changed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as revealed by its aposematic colours, - the colours don't reveal its toxic but warn...I guess
You guess right. Changed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be Omphalea oppositifolia, rather than Omphalea oppositifilia?
Yes, well seen. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to continue later from Distribution and habitat Nectar sources. Ok, there's something to go on with anyway. Fairly straightforward fixes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Shyamal (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I added "Although the intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury,[13] it may be from the Latin Montes Rhipheaus, the Ural Mountains.[14]" This is borderline to original research, do you think the phrasing is clear enough on the fact that the real etymology is unknown and that this is an educated guess? (A well educated guess I think). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"polarization-dependent" is ugly, and you've just said it, but not explained what it means. An explanation should be added, and the rest would be better something like: Although the biological function of this change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal to others of the species. This would require polarization and colour vision [BOTH? OR JUST ONE] abilities in the species, which have not been demonstrated.

  • "The caterpillars spin silk from their mouth with an ‘∞’ motion as they walk" - ???
  • Relationship with humans - better section name needed.
  • "The spectacular moth is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera,[10] and has an international reputation.[9] It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[8] rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form.[18] For these reasons it is much sought by collectors.[9] It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade. Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially. Using mainly wild collected plants, but also cultivated at a small scale.[21]
It was known by Victorians who used its wings to make jewellery.[24]"

- one sentence para, repeats wording in lead, etc. better something like:

This spectacular moth is considered one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[8] rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form.[18] It is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera,[10][9] and is much sought by collectors.[9] It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade; in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery.[24] Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially, mainly using plants collected in the wild, but also some cultivated for the purpose.[21]

Reworded 'In culture' section with most of your proposition. But I put "its wings were used to make jewellery in the Victorian era.[24]" instead of "in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery.[24]" As I feel Victorian has to be there, else "the West" extends the meaning to the whole Western world, which isn't as precise. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it says how long they live I missed it.
    • It is in fact not included. I haven't found the answer. It might be in the R. Catala reference, as I haven't read all 262 pages, but it might not be there either. Another information I haven't put is the time spent in the egg... Catala explicitly says he doesn't have the information. I know of no source giving either the lifespan of the adult or the time in the egg. I am trying to contact David C. Lees (one of the authors in the references), I'll ask if he has sources for those questions if I get his email. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough - maybe no one has hung around to watch! Obviously nice to include if yiou get the info. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got David Lees' answer and he said that in fact the lifespan of the adult is "presumably not known", and would require large scale mark-release studies to determine. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I've expanded the lead as suggested. Is the size about right now? Per Wikipedia:Lead#Length:

  • < 15,000 characters → one or two paragraphs
  • around 32 kilobytes → two or three paragraphs
  • > 30,000 characters → three or four paragraphs

The article is 31kb, but about 11874 letters. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The size itself is fine, imo, but the silk safety rope stuff is unusual (no?) & worth mentioning. The lead is supposed (say some sages) to leave no surprises to come. I still don't quite grasp the importance of Polarization on the scales, & when i followed the link saw the nastiest lead para I've ever seen on WP (for scientific incomprehensibility). There must be a more appropriate article to link to somewhere, and a further sentence of explanation here would be good. Other than that, I think the article needs a quick prose polish all through, then I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the polarization article isn't clear... the Readability for Polarization says reader age is sometimes 23 and grade 18. Actually I don't grasp it that well either. You are right on the fact it should be clearer (both the section and the article actually), so I'll go learn on polarization (by reading related articles to the one I cited), and I'll rewrite the paragraph after I understand more. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I understand now is: Polarization is basically the 'shape' of light, we see it's 'size' (wavelength) but not the way this wave travels (the shape, or polarization). Since light can travel in a line (not polarized), in a circle (circular polarization) or in an ellipse or oval (elliptical polarization). We as humans don't see that, many insects do. For example this helps some butterflies see their polarized mate in the unpolarized forest (nice article in Nature). In this case the light is reflected, changes a bit in wavelength (colour change), but I think not in polarization. No one has ever studied the biological reason for this change. What we know is the reflected polarized light has the potential to carry more or better visual information to other moths. I am relatively certain of this, but I'd really feel better if I had a proofreader with knowledge in optics before I incorporate that to the article. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an interesting article, but I think the writing needs a little polishing.

  • The lead is choppy - sentences do not flow from one topic to the next in an elegant or logical manner.
  • Once the inaccuracy in Drury’s specimen was found, the moth was placed in the genus Urania, until 1823 when the German entomologist Jacob Hübner placed it in a new genus: Chrysiridia. - Why did Hubner place it in a new genus?
  • The intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury. - Is this sentence necessary?
  • The moth also has also been described under other names, including U. crameri by Maassen in 1879 and U. ripheus var. madagascariensis by Lesson in 1831. - Why?
    • Each synonym probably has it's own reason, put part of the reason is the first specimen described by Drury. Some thought it was another species, while others said it was the same as the complete specimen described later (Rhipheus dasycephalus and Leilus orientalis, the first for a butterfly and the second for a moth). C. riphearia is a misspelling. The other I'm not certain. Question: Do you think this should be specified (that some stem from the fact the first description was of a specimen with clubbed antennae and no tails)? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would specify this, yes, since the confusion over the species is a crucial part of the taxonomical history. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I specified the two names. But not the misspelling, as I'm not sure of the sentence "Chrysiridia riphearia Hübner, [1823]; Verz. bek. Schmett.(repl. Papilio rhipheus Stoll, 1782) (19): 289, , TL: India [= Error]". I think the "repl." may mean its a replicate, and the "[= Error]" is maybe referring to the "TL:(type location) India" (in [6]). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genus is, with Urania, sister taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides. - I don't understand this sentence - "sister to the most basal diurnal"? Can something be the most basal?
  • All three genera feed on Omphalea, but Alcides also feeds on Endospermum. - Is the "Taxonomy" section the right place for this sentence?
    • Since basal is relative, yes, something can be most basal. Since it wasn’t clear I’ve rewritten the subsection: “The genus Chrysiridia is entirely African and the only other species in the genus is the East African C. croesus. Chrysiridia is one of three diurnal uraniine genera. The other two genera are Urania, its sister taxa, and Alcides, the most basal. In the group, the use of Endospermum is an ancestral state (a plesiomorphy). The more basal Alcides feeds on Endospermum and Omphalea, while Urania and Chrysiridia only feed on Omphalea.[15]” The “basal” and “sister taxa” refer to part of the cladogram in Uraniinae phylogeny that looks like this:
(Endospermum and Omphalea)
(Omphalea only)

Urania

Chrysiridia

Alcides

  • I copyedited the article a bit as I was reading, but it really needs a good once-over by an uninvolved editor.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Tait was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Griveaud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Smith was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Prum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chrysiridia_rhipheus&oldid=1089085328"