Talk:Lucilia thatuna

Discussion

Welcome to our page, please leave some constructive feedback for us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandeh (talk • contribs) 15:11, March 21, 2009

This is a very informative article. Well done. The only suggestion I have refers to the Taxonomy section. Taxonomy typically refers to general classifications and thing such as that. The taxonomy section in your article seems to refer to the history of L. thatuna rather than characteristics used to distinguish/classify it. Maybe you should consider changing the sub-heading.--Fjessie05 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjessie05 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose we called it 'Taxonomy' because we were discussing a little about its scientific name and the history behind it. We will look in to changing this!SjLangsta (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall very good page most of your sections were very well researched, myiasis in particular. The Life cycle section I believe would better serve the public if it were separated into different sections for larvae and adults in a bulleted list so research is easier. Also, there are areas and temperature in which Lucilia is not the first species to carrion enumerating those would improve the quality of your page. Just minor suggestion, good page. Catielynn.russell (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the compliments and advice. We will definitely consider what you have said and fix what we can!SjLangsta (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Anatomy section starts with "L. thatuna belongs to the family Calliphoridae, the species of which are also known as blowflies." That doesn't seem to belong there because you have "Lucilia thatuna belongs to the family Calliphoridae, the species of which commonly referred to as blowflies, and the genus Lucilia." as your very first sentence in the first paragraph. Also, I think it could be helpful to mention their size relative to other species in Lucilia. Other than that, I liked the organization and the information on this project. Good job and good luck.Heedeok (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can see how that doesn't exactly fit! I'll edit it and see how it looks! Thank you for your ideas!

SjLangsta (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Very informative article! It was brief and straight to the point. I especially enjoyed reading about the medical and forensic importance. There really isn't much that I would change, but I do suggest maybe elaborating a bit more in your very first paragraph just to make it more of an "introductory" paragraph. Also, I would suggest maybe instead of having the subtitle of location, maybe change it to geographical distribution? Overall great article! I can tell a lot of effort has been put in! SH810 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• We have had some difficulty with the introductory paragraph, but I feel it is a standard introduction. I believe it parallels many of the other insect article intro paragraphs! Thank you for the suggestion!SjLangsta (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits

• In your synonym section of your taxobox, the name of the species should be italicized and i don't think there should be an extra (') at the end.

• Okay, so you also made other simple minor mistakes that many others did. I'm tired of typing so I'll just refer you to the discussion page of other sites that i posted what these problems are: Talk:Lucilia cuprina

--Hieu87 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Hieu87

• Thank you for the editing tips! We will change everything we can!

SjLangsta (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• you might want to switch out the in-line citations and use "less than" ref "greater than" to cite the sources instead. It's a lot easier on the eyes. Also the myiasis section of the page is a bit redundant. Pyrothansia (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can see how our myiasis section is a bit redundant. We will take a look at it and see what we can change. Thank you!

SjLangsta (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the location section you might want to explain how the elevation effects your insect's life cycle or survivability. In other words, does the life cycle slow down as elevation increases or vise versa. You could throw this discussion into the Forensic importance section as well. Otherwise, GOOD JOB FOLKS!Robertsonza7 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Adding how elevation affects the life cycle of our researched insect would definitely be great to discuss, however, because Lucilia thatuna is a very rare species, there is not any information that we have found regarding this topic. Thank you for the suggestion; let us know if there is anything more we could add! SjLangsta (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The article had many interesting facts and I could tell that effort was put into researching. However, it seems like many of the sentences in the different paragraphs can be combined. Without combining the sentences, it seems like you are just trying to take up space with simple sentences and words with no significance to the information being presented. I went ahead and edited a couple of sentences in the Forensic Importance section making it flow a little better. Other than that I think you all did a great job! RxAggie246 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for editing for us! We appreciate the changes!

SjLangsta (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed a couple things while reading through your article. In the Life cycle and development section, I think the paragraph would flow a little better if you added a "that" to make the sentence "it is theorized that females...." Also, there are italics missing for Lucilia cuprina (last two words of Forensic importance) and twice for L. thatuna in the Current research section). It is a very good article overall! --Cecimontes (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is very infomative and interesting but I have a few suggestions. I think it would be easier to refer to the sources if you would link the information to the reference section instead of just having the sources in parentheses. Also, the first sentence in the introduction "...the species of which commonly referred to as blowflies.." might sound better as "...the species of which is commonly referred to as blowflies..". In the myiasis section you might want to take the word "cause" out of "These flies cause do not utilize living organisms to lay their eggs." Other than that this is a great article! --Kali615 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestions! I went ahead and made those changes!

SjLangsta (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots of good information! "Lucilia thatuna belongs to the family Calliphoridae, the species of which commonly referred to as blowflies, and the genus Lucilia." might sound better as " the speices most commonly referred to as the blowfly." Also it would be helpful to the reader to link some of the following words; frons, postacrostichal setae, and flaellomere. In life cycles and development adding "that" after "theorized" would make the sentence flow more smoothly. It would also be useful to link the references within the article, otherwise great job! Cpetey08 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I went ahead and changed the sentence structure you suggested the change in. Good idea! The only word I linked was 'frons' because the other two do not have pages on them yet. And I added 'that!' Thank you for your ideas!

SjLangsta (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! this is a very informative article, good job! My suggestion is pertaining to your 9th reference. You need to make sure that all sources used satisfy the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It states that "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources." Conent of wikipedia is contributed by anyone that wants to edit on pages and therefore may not be a satisfactory reference on it own. However, If the information you are refering to from this site has a reference, I suggest you use that reference in place of using wikipedia itself. Good luck!K.reger13 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the very informative suggestion. We will remove that from our references.SjLangsta (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You have done a fine job on your article. I have a couple of suggestions regarding your article. In the introduction you have stated the genus and species. In the taxonomy section you may want to simply write L. thatuna. This is a bit of a tedious remark, but In the adult female paragraph, I believe there is an extra space before the period. In the surgical maggot section. I would take a look at the maggot therapy section. There are several sentances that start with 'maggot,' it becomes a bit repetious. Also, in the medical importance section, are there any cases of when the genus has been used. Euroento (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your observations! I decided to keep the full name in the taxonomy section because it is especially relevant in that section. I did, however, take out the extra space, and I hopefully eleminated some of the redundancy in the surgical maggot secton. Also, in answer to your question, this genus is very commonly used in maggot therapy. Thank you again for your input!--Kendrahewitt (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)kendrahewitt

I am definitely a fan of your article. I think it is very well written and thought. I saw a couple of minor things that you might want to look at though. In the opening paragraph it states, L. thatuna is very scarce; there is not much known about the biology of this fly. I think that it would flow better if it would read something like this; L. thatuna is very scarce and not much is known about this particular fly. I would also like to see you link facultative ectoparasite and or facultative parasite. Great job on the page. Jcsaucier (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsaucier (talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your ideas! We changed the sentence structure as you suggested. The wording seems to work well! I also linked parasite/ectoparasite to the parasitism page. That should help clarify the topic. --Kendrahewitt (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)kendrahewitt

I think the "anatomy" section should be titles "morphology" instead, since we are talking about an insect. Lucilia should always be italicized, and it's not in several places in the article. Also, there are only 8/10 paragraphs present! Otherwise, it's a great article and is written very well! --user:pmullinsPmullins (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Great idea! We will go ahead and change that. I could've sworn we edited all of the italicized problems! Thanks for the heads up. Other than that, I am pretty sure we have 10 paragraphs! The intro counts! And information on our fly has been difficult to obtain. Thank you for the ideas.SjLangsta (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great article. You stated that there is not much information on this species, yet you have put together a well developed informational. Just a few things to help out. If you could find another picture or one that is a little bigger it would help the reader get a better idea of what your species looks like. Under morphology the wording used is a little confusing. The common reader isn’t somebody that may understand some of the vocabulary. Maybe using links to other articles would make it more helpful. I really like the current research paragraph. Finally, you could use external links to provide the reader with more outside information. Barnesj (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)