Talk:Polish cochineal

message: This is a very well written article, and the research is impressive. It must have taken a lot of effort to run down the obscure (but good) sources. One thing I would suggest is an inline citation for the source on the life cycle information.Rusty Cashman 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for your effort to review the article, Mkultra72. Please let me know, if you have any more questions or suggestions. — Kpalion(talk) 15:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, the "third instar" still bothers me a little when I read it. Perhaps it should include a dash "A third-instar (developmental stage) male larva" to make it clear that third modifies instar and not larva. Or even wikilink all of "third instar" (linking to just instar). Perhaps even it should read "When the male larva reaches the third-instar developmental stage it forms a delicate..." These are just ideas. For the next sentence "Females are neotenous, they retain their larval form, and in late June or early July they re-emerge from the ground..." might work better. With the current wording it's not clear if all females are neotenous and re-emerge, or only those females that are neotenous re-emerge. Mkultra72 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I hyphenated "third-instar" and rephrased the part about neotenous females. Should be better now. — Kpalion(talk) 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: This article was in wonderful shape. I made a small number of nit-picky changes, mostly to punctuation.
I hesitated before removing the L (for Latin) after the two instances of Porphyrophora polonica but saw that the author had not used a similar L with other Latin names, and it seemed unnecessary to use it for these two. Finetooth 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Finetooth. The L didn't stand for Latin, but for Linneaus, the guy who came up with the Latin name. I just read that this kind of nomenclature is actually only used in botany, so you were probably right removing it anyway. I decided to leave it in the references though, since there the L is part of a title of a book. — Kpalion(talk) 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proofreading

message: The linguistics section has one ref for many facts. And in fact, one fact bothers me a lot - the claim that the name for June comes from the name of the beetle. Firstly, I've seen another red beetle that comes out in summer around then and it is everywhere in Warsaw (don't know the name of the beetle.. but it's not this one). Secondly, the article on Ukrainian months says that Ukrainian June is named after the red berries. It has no ref, but hey, this article has none either. Can we get some sources together? Malick78 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Section still unreferences (the only reference goes to an online dictionary). Is this section important, if it is removed the article may still be classified as Good. AIRcorn (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs??

message: Shouldn't a 'good article' have a picture of its subject? Not a 250 year old engraving. A photo! I want to see what these things actually look like. Malick78 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, we don't have any free pictures of the insect (yet), so all we have are public-domain drawings from the 18th century. We do have some pitures of the closely related Armenian cochineal, though. — Kpalion(talk) 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo?