Talk:Lepidoptera
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: This article is nearly an A-class article, with a good list of references, and practically everything it needs. What strikes me though is that if you remove the "evolution" section, there is very little left! Why not have a bit more about ecological role, life cycle, anatomy, etc.? I know that most of this already exists on articles such as "butterfly", "moth" and "caterpillar", but there should still be a section that summarizes this kind of info with a link to the main article or the appropriate section in another article. Not much is needed to reach A-level!! IronChris | (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
 |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: This article is nearly an A-class article, with a good list of references, and practically everything it needs. What strikes me though is that if you remove the "evolution" section, there is very little left! Why not have a bit more about ecological role, life cycle, anatomy, etc.? I know that most of this already exists on articles such as "butterfly", "moth" and "caterpillar", but there should still be a section that summarizes this kind of info with a link to the main article or the appropriate section in another article. Not much is needed to reach A-level!! IronChris | (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
 |
The introduction of this article is too short. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article. |
The previous messages have been archived here -
[edit] Need for rework on this article
This article, despite being the premier article of WikiProject Lepidoptera, has not developed over time. It had a taxobox but that vanished; I have placed another just today. It had some taxonomic lists, but they are gone too. The sections also don't seem to be what the user would like to know from this wiki. We need major rework to bring it to at least Good Article status.
I have archived the previous talk so that we can start afresh. I propose that we work out step by step and move forward to improve it.
Step one, what information does the user expect to read here? Or what information is logically to be found here?
Can we have suggestions in the form of a heirarchy or logical sequence of section headings? Once we get a reasonable model, we can go ahead from there.
Regards, AshLin 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
