Talk:Codling moth

message: The obvious problem with the article is the intense focus on agriculture, leaving minimal coverage of other areas like morphology, behavior, evolution etc. With such a narrow focus it can achive no more than a high start or very low B-class rating on the quality scale. Note that I've reassessed it as of high importance to lepidoptera - the fact it is very common, well known, and of high economic importance should justify this rating. Richard001 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Hi page editors,
I do not know much about the subject, but I just uploaded two photos of Commons, which may be of relevance to this article.
File:Cydia pomonella trap hanging in tree 2012-06.jpg
File:Cydia pomonella trap 2012-06-05.jpg
--Slaunger (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. See my note under Talk:Insect trap.--Brambleshire (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of pheromone trap with caught individuals 

message: Hi! I will be editing this page for the next two weeks or so. I have been assigned to do research on the Codling moth and improve the Wikipedia page, as part of my Behavioral Ecology class at Washington University in St. Louis. It would be greatly appreciated if nothing is deleted while I am making edits. Thank you! Uhm.s 09:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Edits  

message: Hi! I thought this article was very comprehensive and covered a broad range of topics. I made a few very minor edits, including deleting extraneous phrases and adding a couple of hyperlinks throughout the article. Other than that, I didn’t see anything else that I thought needed to be edited; I thought that this post was really well done and had a ton of important information! Mlopez2121 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Edits 

message: Hey there! I mostly made grammar edits and deleted redundant information, over explanation, etc.  Let me know if you want to discuss the changes I made further- I think all of the information has been retained, just made more succinct. 
Emilykh26 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Edits 2 

message: I edited grammar and sentence structure in the lead section and habitat subheading. I captioned a photo under the morphology heading as “Cydia pomonella moth”. I also added a picture of the caterpillar stage under the life history section. I added a primary source article citation to the section about pheromones. This article was the original paper to determine the structure of the Codling moth pheromone. Lastly, I added a paragraph under the biological control section about a wasp parasite of the codling moth that could be used to control the pest. I added a citation from a journal about this topic. Felderp (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer edits 3 

message: The GA review, when it starts, will obviously bring up a few issues, so you might want to get going with the obvious ones. Here are some suggestions:
* The lead is way too short and requires a complete rewrite.
* make use of the  template throughout.
* There’s an empty section.
* Attend to disambiguation.
* One of the sources shows a C1 error.
I don’t know whether it’s necessary for GA that sources identify page numbers. I suspect it is. You might want to read the GA criteria. If yes, that’s quite a bit of work for someone. Shortened footnotes is a suitable referencing system to deal with that.
I Hoe this is useful. Schwede66 14:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work needed for GA