Psylliodes luridipennis is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Thanks, I appreciate it. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
F. von Kutschera, first name?
Found it here. Not the most reliable of sources, but I think it's safe to go with (though I'm not citing). J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"have been aided by 'stepping stone' land to the north east" of the island." Which I assume is now submerged?
Clarified. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Should the binomial be bolded in the lead? A bit more complicated here, since the binomial is the article name...
I've switched it around. I can debold the common names if you'd prefer. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Anything in what its closest relatives are?
Not that I've found. I don't think its been part of any taxonomic studies. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why a cite in the lead? Should be unnecessary.
Removed. It was there to preemptively appease the DYK crowd.
Seems a bit weird that the common name is used in the article, while the article title is the binomial. Is this common in recognised insect articles?
Good point, reworked. 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"distinguish it from its ally" Ally in what way? Particularly close relation? Or just a member of the genus that happens to live on Lundy?
It's a copy-paste from the (PD) source, to be honest (as I note in the footnote). I suspect it's just because they're in the same genus. I can remove it if you think it's problematic. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"the species was also willing to feed upon other crucifers taken from gardens." Under what circumstances?
When researchers are intrigued! I've clarified. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"and an undescribed race of flea beetle Psylliodes napi" Is this the short winged form mentioned under description? And shouldn't it be "the flea beetle"?
Yeah. There's not really any difference between "race" and "form" (like there's no real difference between a "hamlet" and a "village") and the sources use both. I've added "the", though I think either is fine. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"and the wind for pollination" Easter egg links are discouraged, not sure how to work around it.
"The white[7] Lundy cabbage flea beetle larvae" Maybe just say white larvae here, since earlier you distinguish species by colour in the common names, so I was almost confused here.
"Though the committee notes that "[h]ost plant numbers have been low, but relatively stable since 2001", it notes"Notes twice, a bit repetitive?
Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, changes look good, so I'll pass. One final thought, Psylliodes could need an article, but that's of course not part of the task here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll look into an article for the genus. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
