Talk:Small pearl-bordered fritillary

message: This is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007) species—GRM 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance rating 

message: Hey so I thought this was a great article, but I found a couple sentences that were never elaborated upon and did not make sense, so I took those out. I also fixed minor formatting errors and added some links. It would also be great if you could look back at the parts that say there needs to be a citation added and to put those in as soon as possible, before they get deleted. Also the last few sentences of your "Food plant and eggs" section doesn't really make sense. I was confused as to what you were talking about or what you were referring to. Do the eggs prefer damp areas? the plants? Otherwise great job!
Lily1004 (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Hi, I am peer-reviewing this article for Behavioral Ecology as well. I thought your article was quite informative! I learned quite a lot about the butterfly's conservation issues due to sibling mating issues and habitat destruction. 
However, some of your information is not provided by the cited sources or required cited sources, such as the butterfly being present in Asia. If you could add citations to those statements, that would be great! I reorganized the sentences in the distribution section to flow from one topic to the next better. I'm a little confused as to what "through Asia to Korea" entails, so if that was made more clear that would be helpful. I also combined the "Food plant and eggs" and "Typical nectar food plants for adult" sections under "Food Resources," since both are discussing food resources for the species. However, I'm not entirely sure what "They" refers to in "Food plant and eggs". Is it the eggs? From how it is written, it looks like it is all referring to the food plants. 
In your Conservation section, I changed the citations to refer the correct article that described fragmented area protection. I am also unsure how significant the Iowa study is for the conservation of this butterfly specifically, as the study looked at collections of numerous species of butterflies in the wild after 33 years, and the numbers only dropped from 5 to 1 for this particular species.The study itself mentions that there is no clear-cut way of telling species presence through collection and focuses more on diversity in general rather than the small pearl-bordered fritillary, so I removed the sentence using this article and stating that this was an 80% loss of the butterfly in the region. I also made some minor grammar fixes throughout the article and added some internal links to other Wikipedia articles for clarification. jerryshen (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear you have done extensive writing and research on this topic. However, your article would benefit most from spreading out the content into different sections to improve readability. Choose how you want to do this. I added a section with citation on the adult life cycle. Feel free to check the source and add more as you wish. Generally, your writing can be more direct. It is stronger and more credible when you write declaratively instead of relying too much on statements like "this indicates" or "seems to." It doesn't happen excessively, but it is something you may want to review. Lastly, the section on conservation where you describe "a study in Germany" could be truncated. Try not to summarize the specifics of what the paper did explicitly. Cheers. Ecampell22 (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review