Talk:Japanese rhinoceros beetle

How large are these dudes?

How large are these beetles, in terms of length and weight? SpectrumDT 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In Pop Culture?

Arn't both Kamen Rider Agito and Kamen Rider Kuuga themed after these beetles, too? Insomuch as the mask design, I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.153.211 (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How big??

OMG. How big are they? --Itu (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 25 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oroblancos (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Oroblancos (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that male Japanese rhinoceros beetles can fling other males off trees? Source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1409585111
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Oroblancos (talk). Self-nominated at 03:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Japanese rhinoceros beetle; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Hello Oroblancos, and thank you for a great article! You have made some excellent improvements to Japanese rhinoceros beetle, but unfortunately it is not eligible for a Did You Know nomination. DYK is meant for brand new content, and while the article has seen massive improvement, it has not been expanded by 5x in size since you started editing last week (4250 bytes to 9700 bytes, about a 2x expansion). However, I think you can go one better than DYK. With just a little more work, I think this has the potential to pass a peer review and become a Good Article, at which point it would be recognized as some of the best content on Wikipedia (and could also be re-nominated for DYK! If you are interested in that, please let me know and I would be happy to help you through the process. Fritzmann (message me) 14:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Article Review

I suggest removing the last three sentences of the first paragraph of the lead section. I think that this removal would not result in a significant loss of general information about the beetle and would save some important details about male interactions discussed later in the article. In the Life cycle and behavior section, I added more information about the life cycle of the beetle because there was not enough information that described the life cycle. I cited the corresponding scientific source I referenced the life cycle information from. Also, most of the information in that section seems out of place. I think a better transition/conclusion that explains the relevance of this information to the behavior of the larvae could be helpful to readers. 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Frenchfrylvr (talk)

Peer Review

This article has a lot of good information and is easy to understand! I made some minor edits like removing redundant sentences or adding a sub-heading. I suggest adding more to the Geographic range section. The information here is already mentioned in the lead section so it seems repetitive. Expanding on this by adding information like why the beetles might vary in size and horn performance across regions or what selections pressures they may face in different regions would make this section more in depth. Cvj.005 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article seemed relatively well written. I made some minor edits for consistency, clarity, and convenience. I made terminology more consistent such as ensuring the reference to Allomyrina dichotoma as A. dichotoma throughout rather than alternating. I also added links for technical terms like sexual dimorphism and intrasexual selection. I also removed the outdated term "Oriental" as it did not seem necessary for the medicinal usage section. I also adjusted some headers for clarity like changing carving to bark-carving and male/male to male-male. I would also suggest that a specific section for sexual dimorphism be created given that it is referenced in nearly all sections of the article. Owen Guo (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer Edits

I thought the article seemed really well written, containing lots of information, being thorough in descriptions, being well organized with subsections in each section, and links incorporated throughout. I just added some additional links for some technical terms that may not be common knowledge. I also reordered some sections to conform to general topic order guidelines for beetles. Other than that, i thought the article seemed great. Owen Guo (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Revisions

Generally very well written with concise sentences for the most part. First intro paragraph is too detailed, save some of that info for the remaining sections. There are many times you reference "researchers have shown", "it has been found", "it has been hypothesized" without citations. You must include citations here or else we won't know if these studies are credible. Some of your headings don't make sense. The physiology section does not focus on physiology and should just be broken up into the two subheadings. The second half of the geographic range section should be combined with habitat. No bullets, break the life stages into subheadings 2600:6C40:1F0:A0F0:2978:3A3A:709E:7C6 (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Revisions

I had a great time reading this article to learn about the Japanese rhinoceros beetle. I felt the writing was descriptive yet intelligible the entire way throughout. I also thought all of the sections were organized in an effective manner that flowed quite well. To contribute to the depth and breadth of this article, I added a section on “Sexual Selection” and a section on “Sexual Dimorphisms” to your article to fill in a couple of informational gaps. I also changed the names of a couple of your section headers to make them more broad so that you can add a greater diversity of information to them later on. Great work! VSimhambhatla (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think this is a great article that is very informational and easy to follow. A lot of the other peer review comments cover things I was going to say, I think their contributions to the article were really good. I added a few pictures including one of a female rhinoceros beetle on a human hand in order to give the reader a tangible size comparison. Organizationally speaking, I would make the "Sexual Selection" and "Sexual Dimorphism" sections into subheadings under the "Genetics" section because I think they're closely related. On this same note, I think the Mating section and its subheadings could be added to the Intra-Species Competition section because the information in both of these sections covers some of the same topics. Overall though, I think this article is very well done! Geluck.t (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)