Talk:Monarch butterfly migration

Monarch butterfly migration was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 7, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Mid‑importance Lepidoptera High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths 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.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 4 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itb4030.

Above undated message substituted from

There is quite a lengthy section on theory, which mainly concerns animal navigation. I've inserted a main link; most of what is said looks quite general (not only monarchs, not only butterflies, and often not only insects use many of those mechanisms), so it would likely be appropriate to cut the section down leaving only a brief summary of animal navigation in general, and a short summary of what is specific to monarchs.

The citations are in a wide range of styles with many empty parameters. It would be helpful to choose one format for dates, and one for names.Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying the progress being made on this article. I certainly appreciate the assistance, since for such a while I have not received much feedback concerning any of the articles that I have created or have made major contributions. I think this article will be better for your input.

As for the elderly and flaky materials, you will soon notice, ifyou haven't already, that the information from these sources will be expanded quite a bit with journal articles, government publications and other scholarly references. But your point is valid, better and more references are necessary. I happened to have the PBS program around and so I watched it.

The lengthy theory section related to the migration of the monarch differs quite markedly from the general topic of animal migration for a number of reasons. Some of the study methods are unique to the study of monarch migration. The topic is notable and differs from animal migration because of: the distance travelled during the migration, the multigenerational aspect of the migration, the cues and timing of the migration, the physiological state of dormancy during which the butterfly migrates(!), the number of animals participating in the migration (perhaps half a billion), the visibility of the migration and the public interest in the migration. In addition, the study of the migrations involves conservation organizations with big budgets, tri-lateral conferences between governments, interests of indigenous people groups in Mexico and the recent petition submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency to declare the monarch threatened with extinction along with the declaration that the migration is an endangered phenomena. A lot of people, a lot of non-profits, a lot of governmental agencies, some agricultural interests and even state transportation departments are being affected by the topic of this article. President Obama recently issued a memorandum regarding the migration. I don't believe he has probably commented on animal migration in general. If someone does a search on monarch butterfly migration on google you will find more than two dozen articles from news sources (not even included yet in the article) discussing the migration - and this has been in the last few months. A search on the topic of animal migration invaribly leads back to using the migration of the monarch as some kind of poster child for the general migration of animals.

At this point in time, I have not even been able to add the numerous other theories that exist and are not included in the article. The study of monarch butterfly is unique and quite different than that of animal migration. Perhaps I will work on the animal migration article after this one.

An article exists on insect migration and lepidopteran migraton, too. But these articles are also limited in their scope. Let's work together on this, I certainly appreciate your perspective and suggestions.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably move the discussion to this talk page since we are spending some effort reverting edits. I am pretty sure that we can improve the article by working together.  Bfpage |leave a message  11:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a stack of references here next to my laptop waiting to be added to the article. I guess I am asking for just a little more time to get them put in before you are tempted to merge something or delete. If you can, would you let me know what you are changing. I have read your edits but I am unfamiliar with some of the acronyms/abbreviations that are used. I apologize for my lack of knowledge. Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  17:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

50.111.8.229 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)I am grateful for this wonderful article. Regarding the first illustration: The titles are in German, even though this is the English Wikipedia. I would be grateful if it were possible to convert the titles into English. (I also cannot figure out how to pause the changes in the figure. I might be able to figure out the German titles if I could pause the changes. Otherwise, my German is just not fast enough.)50.111.8.229 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage asked me to comment on this article, with some concern about reversions. I can't immediately see reversions or negative editing in the history, and the two other recent contributors are both experienced editors. Bfpage, if you have specific concerns, please provide diffs for the edits that you are unhappy with.

Some further comments

•  Done There shouldn't normally be refs in the lead section. It summarises the article, so everything should be referenced in the body of the text anyway
•  Done MoS says headings should be lower case after first word, some are capitalised with every word, eg Southern Migration
•  Done there shouldn't be links within headings at any level
• Having subheadings for single paragraphs, and in some cases single sentences, is poor style, looks like a tabloid newspaper. Merge the subsections to get flowing text rather than soundbites
• The possibility of an inherited map has been posited suggesting that the butterflies may follow streams and recognize landmarks.[35][60][61][62][63][64][65]— seven refs for one statement seems excessive. If all are really needed, group them together in one ref
• A content point. There is no mention that this butterfly regularly crosses the Atlantic in small numbers. I've seen Monarchs in Cornwall
• Countries, continents and US states don't really need linking
• Lots of inconsistency in refs Surname, fist name or first name, surname? Stick to one style, and never have full caps like BROWER, LINCOLN P.
• Article titles vary in capitalisation style, probably following the original. Stick to one consistent style
• Web-only refs must have a publisher and access date (not needed for web versions of real documents
• The uncited sections of the text obviously need citations, especially as one appears to be just opinion as it stands

I realise that this is a work in progress, so just pointers. I've deliberately avoided editing the article myself, so that if Bfpage, or any other editor, can highlight edit-warring or other undesirable practices I remain an uninvolved admin. I've watchlisted this page now

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I can't see any reverts either. Bfpage was worried about my recent edits being reverted, but I can't see that. You are lucky to see the butterflies Jimfbleak. A few months ago I was telling Bfpage that I would see them all the time, but not anymore. Mass migrations every few years or so would go thru the valley I live in, but I haven't seen any migrations since '92. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will use your suggestions above as a checklist over the next couple of weeks to bring everything up to standard. As for the monarch appearing in Cornwall, the topic of "Range" is in the article on the monarch butterfly per the accepted layount style in leps. It is interesting, though, because the range of the monarch is so large = worldwide, as a matter of fact and of reference, it makes it difficult to justify making the point of imminent extinction make sense in the article. A better term would be exterpation (not extinction) but then none of the sources that I have found even use that term. Redefining the terms is something that I am pretty sure is not a good idea, since there are no references to do that. It probably against some wp policy, anyway. I can't tell you how wonderful it is to have two more pairs of experienced eyes looking over my shoulders making sure I do not make profound blunders. I really do hope to bring this article up to FA status, it would be my first.   Bfpage |leave a message  03:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I subscribe to different listserves that follow the monarch butterfly migration. I can't possibly keep up with the dozens of articles that are published daily in the media so I will post them here on the talk page for any interested parties:

news story^[1] news story^[2] news story^[3]news story^[4]

In 1966, there was a book by Ross E. Hutchins, titled "The Travels of Monarch X" about the tagging of a Monarch butterfly in the Northeastern United States and following the flight to Mexico. I'm not sure when this fits in the history of learning about their migration - I haven't seen my copy of the book in well over 35 years, but from what I remember, it seemed to be fairly early on in tracing their migration. If anyone still has a copy of this, it might be worth including in this article. Jtyroler (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jtyroler . Can you believe it? I have that book myself right now in my library. I thought once that we should have a section in either the monarch butterfly article or the monarch migration article under the title of children's literature. How do you think that would work out?

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage - I think Monarch X should be mentioned in at least the Monarch Migration page - it seems to be an early study of their migration, albeit written for a young audience. IMHO it probably should be mentioned in both articles. I think it's great that you still have your copy of the book - I probably bought my copy at school through the Weekly Reader or Scholastic Book Fair. Jtyroler (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what a great conversation we are havingJtyroler. If there is even this much interest between you and I, then I bet we could even put together an article possibly called monarch butterfly children's literature. I have a friend who has written at least two books on the monarch butterfly for children. I wonder if the copyright has expired on Monarch X? It would be wonderful if we could use a photo of the book cover in this proposed, new article. So what you think?

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage I don't know if the copyright has expired on Monarch X, but, looking at the page on Amazon.com, it's out of print. There are photos of the book cover on the Amazon page, but I don't know if it's available per Wikipedia's terms. Would a page need to be started for each book and then a list of butterfly books for children. I don't know anything about the author, but, we should be able to get the publication info from the Amazon page. Jtyroler (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bfpage, well done on a nice article. However, you might reconsider the validity of the {{swarming}} template. You removed it with the edit summary, ''Monarchs have never been described as swarming; scientists call it roosting". In fact it is not unusual for scientists to talk about swarming in the context of monarch butterflies. Sure "roosting" is used as a specific term when referring to a swarm of monarchs resting at a site. But "swarm" is still valid as the more general term, just as it is the general term for "schooling" fish or "flocking" birds. The template has a group devoted to migrating animals and insects that display swarm characteristics, and monarch butterflies fit squarely within that group. By removing the navigation template you are removing all the relevant links to similar swarming and migration behaviours. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I think I know what you are saying-swarming is the plural term of a group of butterflies. Is that right? Or do you mean that swarming refers to a moving group of butterflies? Either way, I believe I made a mistake in removing the template. Feel free to revert, it was my mistake. Thanks for being so diplomatic about it! You have a new friend.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:

References

Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?

Scope

Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?

Layout and organization

Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?

Well written

Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?

Supporting materials

Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?

Understandable

Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.

Input anyone?

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monarch butterfly migration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305034410/http://ipm.osu.edu/trans/053_231.htm to http://ipm.osu.edu/trans/053_231.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104180128/http://www.wwf.org.mx/wwfmex/prog_bosques_fs_mm.php to http://wwf.org.mx/wwfmex/prog_bosques_fs_mm.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Monarch butterfly migration/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience in waiting for me to respond. Barbara ✐  ✉ 15:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'm back now and hope we can close this out promptly! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one deserving thanks, you have been quite patient in the whole process. I am content with this leisurely pace instead of trying to complete the review in a week or so. If this becomes too tedious, let me know and I can withdraw the nomination. I can then continue to work on it and contact you when I believe I have addressed all the issues with the article.

The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Several paragraphs are uncited, or end with uncited statements. Some of the latter may belong with the cited text above it, but this can't be assumed. All need citations, please.

YI removed the entirely uncited section on Habitat since that information is contained in the Monarch butterfly article. I also made a section on the topic of day length not visible to the reader while I locate references for this content. Though I know I have read the content somewhere, it will take a bit to relocate it. Barbara ✐  ✉ 15:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of the organizations listed in the table in Conservation programs are uncited; other are not bluelinked (and they could be); others are linked directly to external sites, contrary to policy: those links should (if reliable) be converted to citations.

I have begun the conversion of links into citations. Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 84 and 89 to Monarch Watch are not linked and are not published books, journals, or newspapers. Are the documents accessible in a library, or how?

These references have been removed and the content is still supported by the remaining references. Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 93 to Brower Fink Brower Leong 1995 doesn't go anywhere.

I moved the whole journal section to my userspace. I want to spend more time in incorporating these sources into the article in the appropriate places. I'm not sure why the journal section even exists at this point. Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 139, 140, 142, 143 seem more like notes than refs, they don't verify anything so they need to be replaced with citations.

Structure

• The article is divided into 17 chapters, for no obvious reason, and the intended structure of the article is not easy to discern. It would be helpful to have no more than about 7 chapters, chosen to make the article's structure and 'story' clear. For example, Extinction and Conservation are plainly related, and Conservation programs and Proposed policies (and maybe Politics too) could go inside that section too. Similarly, you could usefully group Migration routes, Roosting sites, and Overwintering sites (you might have a chapter on Geography, say). Then, why are there separate sections on Southern and Northern migrations, with a third on Migration routes? A bit of reorganisation would help here.

Comment- I will locate the MOS for entomology topics since I wrote this article before I had even heard of MOS and restructure the article to the appropriate guidelines. Barbara ✐  ✉ 15:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MoS or no MoS, some kind of logic to the structure is required. Basically we need a small enough no. of top-level sections that the bones of the article are immediately comprehensible. 17 of anything isn't that. Further, the structure can be rationalized by regrouping sections to make more sense, not a MoS matter, as I've now proposed in the article. We're down from 17 to 8, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on making the article more 'compact' and reducing the number of sections. Though this task is not finished, I hope you concur with how the sections have been restructured. Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the organization/topics/headings have been improved to a more logical structure. Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too.

Comments

• The subsections of 'Direct observations', especially 'Types of data collected' go into far too much detail. Suggest that whole section is reduced to one paragraph summarizing the main points. The material seems to overlap with the accounts of monitoring methods in 'Butterfly counts', so some rationalization is required.

I've removed the redundant material and the content that is too detailed. I am taking a look at the whole article to see if it is over-detailed in other places. Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'Butterfly counts' text is verbose and repetitive within the section as well as with other sections as just mentioned. Some of it is not far off duckspeak: "Determining the range will reveal the expansion or contraction of the butterfly's normal range. The range of the monarch does vary year." Whole section needs cutting down and copy-editing.

This section has been whittled down and is less verbose. Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'Tagging' section is also verbose, in fact, why don't you copy-edit whole article for verbosity and repetition. The paragraph in Tagging, "The official record for the longest tag-recovery ..." is way over the top; it might merit one sentence or so.

I agree with your assessment on this section. I have removed a large part of the content into my draft space because there is enough material still 'out there' that will support a stand-alone article some time when after this review. Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the verbosity problem is down to underlinking; for example, I've added a main link to 'Mark and recapture', which is the subject of another article; same goes for 'Butterfly counts'. There is no need to have more than one sentence on either of these here, as describing them is not the purpose of the article (a link is sufficient, with perhaps a brief word of explanation, in each case). In fact, that means there's no need for a section on it, the whole 'Population and migratory study methods' could be collapsed to a paragraph or so.

A Butterfly count is not the equivalent of a Monarch butterfly count. Butterfly counts include counting the number of Monarch butterflies along with other species. Monarch butterfly counts are performed to assess the numbers of migrating/roosting monarchs. So there is enough of a difference to have content on counts. I have whittled the section down a bit. Barbara ✐  ✉ 09:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 'US National strategy' - having "three goals including:" followed by two bullet points is a bit strange!

Strange indeed! Now it's fixed. Barbara ✐  ✉ 09:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Peninsula Point Light, Michigan needed in See also? The remaining articles could probably be linked in the article and removed, too.

The "See also" section has been trimmed and the topics are wikilinked in the article. Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'Policies' section is mainly bullet points, one uncited, two in sentence case; these might (all) be better as flowing text.

I have been working on this section and hope to finish it tonight. Barbara ✐  ✉ 02:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I noticed some problems with a few of the references and I will be working on these in the next days. Barbara ✐  ✉ 02:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• Permissions are ok but we don't need 3 nearly identical images of butterflies roosting on trees.

Y Though monarchs roost in all three of these locales, the major roosting sites are in California and Mexico and so I retained those images and deleted the one from Texas. Barbara ✐  ✉ 15:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still not convinced by the logic - if the images were distinctive of place then I'd buy it but since it's just Ms in trees the image=place equation doesn't really work.

I certainly see your point. The roosting places are very different from one another and I am not sure that is in the article at this time. Migrating monarchs east of the Rockies end up roosting in mountains in central mexico where great care is taken not to disturb the butterflies, yet the largest roosting sites in California are in urban areas! This is an interesting distinction. Perhaps a description of the roosting sites needs to be added. Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, if you do that then the images will slot into place naturally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom has requested the closure of this GAN for external reasons. If anyone would like to complete the job, feel free to address the remaining GAN items above, to renominate the article for GAN, and to ping me; I'll then take up the reins where we left off. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A systematic review: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00099/full Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 18:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]