Talk:Sarcophaga bullata

Untitled

It’s a very informative article. I like how you have a gallery and how the Morphology and Development sections are broken down into subsections. It makes the article organized and easy for the reader to find information without getting lost in huge paragraphs. I would however try and get some of your red links to turn blue. Charlejo (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive remarks. We really appreciate the input. As for the links, I went through and redirected or edited as many as I could. The rest are technical names that unfortunately don't have pages yet. Thanks again. Acreese23 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the name change, we have seen the species called both Sarcophaga bullata and Neobellieria bullata. However, in looking up the taxonomy, we discovered that Neobellieria is considered a subgenus, thus we named the page as to stay consistent with the standard Genus species. If you know something more than we do, please feel free to discuss it with us, but it would be greatly appreciated if you could provide a reasoning for your prospective changes before actually applying them to the page. Thanks. Acreese23 (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To add to what Acreese23 has stated, after doing our research on Sarcophaga bullata, we understand that Neobellieria bullata is the proper name for the subgenus of the fly, but we did our research based on the genus Sarcophaga, and would like the page to reflect the actual research we did. So thank you for the input and editing, but we would like the page to represent the genus Sarcophaga, and not the subgenus Neobellieria. (AggieKelly18 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Predators page

I love the pictures taken, they really give a great extra input to how the fly looks, yet i'm concerned with the predators. I think there could be a little more discriptive detail on how and how many, and other qualities describing the hunting of the Sarcophaga bullata. It needs to say how and when they are most vulnerable, but as a whole the article is great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewdrew (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our article. Unfortunately, we included as much information as we could find detailing the specific predators of S. bullata. There are certain forensically-relevant beetles that have been known to feed on fly larvae on corpses, but we were unable to find specific information regarding our particular fly. For more information detailing beetle-fly predation, see the Histeridae page. We cannot say for certain that these particular beetles are predacious on our fly, but it gives an example. Hopefully more research will come out soon so that a detailed list of S. bullata predators may be compiled. Hope this helps! Ecbraley (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading your article I think you did a very good job at breaking it up into different sections. It makes it easy to follow and find specific information. One thing i did notice is that you should only capitalize the first letter of all your headings unless they are proper names. You have some that should be corrected for example "Feeding habits" and "Social behavior" ect. Besides that this is a good article. Russtud82 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation! I'll make those changes so it's capitalized correctly!! (AggieKelly18 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Out of all the articles I have read for my 3 comments yoors was definately the most thorough and detailed. I love how you have so many different sections and i don't have to read through one section to find 3 different things. The picture gallery was also a nice addition it really provided for more depth i think. jhud12 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for reading our article.. and for the compliment! Kimberlyaggie2010 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)KimberlyAggie2010

Development section

I really enjoyed your article and thought it was very informative and well organized. The only thing that I would suggest is perhaps adding a small paragraph to describe the pupal or pre-pupal stages in the development section. Also, if available (because I know that it is sometimes hard to find) some information about the temperature ranges that these flies develop at would be a great addition. Bg27 (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our page. We had a rather difficult time finding specific information on S. bullata pupae, except for details regarding the maternal pupal diapause prevention mechanisms that are discussed in the "Other Research" section at the bottom of the article. I have linked the word "diapause" to the related Wikipedia page (see Diapause) that further explains this topic. Hope this helps and thanks again for the input! Ecbraley (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a little bit to what Ecbraley stated above, specific information on the development of the species S. bullata was very difficult to find. Most of the information we found was in reference to the Sarcophagidae family as a whole and even in that, there was very little to no specific details describing the pupae. As far as the temperature ranges, like you said, this information has proved difficult to find as well. We had really hoped to be able to include temperature data because it is so relevant to the forensic field, but unfortunately, we have yet to discover a citable source. Thank you for the input though and if something changes and we are able to find some relevant information, we will definitely add it to the page. Acreese23 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures/Predators

THe pictures are nice addition to the project, it really gives a view as to what the fly looks like. As for the predators, there should be more details as to what the predators do, how the fly actually gets hunted, and what it does if anything to avoid it. Matthewdrew (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Unfortunately, the information that we have on the predators of the fly is all that we were able to find. There has not been a lot of research on the details of the predators, so we are only able to put up what is currently known and what we were able to find. But thanks for the suggestion! (AggieKelly18 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Great work. Very informative and detailed. I really like the picture gallery and you did a great job on the Forensic section explaing the importance of temperature and how it relates to the maggot mass. The only suggestions I have would be in your Forensic Research section you state that the flies are distributed from coast to coast in the United States but your statement in the distribution section talks only about the Southern and Western US. I just thought that was a little confusing on where they might be found; whether they are throughout the US or only in certain areas. I would also define some specific words, whether that be with words or links, that are used often such as bristles (how they are distinct from setae), costal spine, and scleritized. Great work. Aggento10 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and I agree that the presentation of the information is rather confusing. Unfortunately, we drew our research from many sources, including sources detailing the distribution of the genus Sarcophaga as a whole and those describing the specific distribution of S. bullata. As not much is known regarding our particular fly, we attempted to piece together the S. bullata-specific information the best we could. What is known for certain about S. bullata is that it is found in the Nearctic region, as discussed in the abstract at the top of the article. This refers to essentially all of North America, so pinpointing a specific distribution is very difficult. As such, we have come to understand that it is possible to find this particular fly across the United States throughout the year, with varying distributions based on environmental factors. Ecbraley (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

This was very well written and organized. Some little things to correct, however. In the introduction, since it is essentially an window to the whole article, you might want to mention or "introduce" the fact that you're going to talk about the development, feeding habits, natural predators, and future research. Also, in your subject headings like "Feeding Habits", only the first word needs to be capitalized. (not "habits") GOOD ARTICLE THOUGH!Robertsonza7 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! I just changed the headings so they are capitalized correctly, and we'll go back through the introduction to see what we can add! (AggieKelly18 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

We really appreciate your input. I have edited the introduction to try to be more representative of the information included in the article as a whole. Thanks for your advice! Ecbraley (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There are just a few things that you need to work on, the rest looks great! The format for headings in Wikipedia- only the first word is capitalized. So Feeding habits would be correct. Also, you need to write out the entire word millimeters every time it shows up in your paper (this is especially important in the lead!). I didn't notice a conclusion for your paper, which you need for the Ento project. I would try to expand on your lead; someone told us that they're usually longer than that and really sumarize everything that is going to be found in the paper. I would try and find some way of incorporating Maggot Therapy into your article somewhere. You have it as a "see also", but it isn't mentioned anywhere in your article; you've only mentioned myiasis. Last thing, you use "pretty" a lot, and this really doesn't mean anything. For example- "pretty consistent". Either remove it or define exactly how consistent the fly is; "pretty much" doesn't really mean much. These are all really small details that shouldn't take you too long (hopefully). You have a really great article though, and the picture really adds a lot to it. Great job! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great comments! I went through and corrected all the subheadings and writing out the entire word for millimeters. Because we do not reference maggot therapy in the article, I just removed the link to maggot therapy since Sarcophaga is not common in the therapy. And I also went through, and removed the only "pretty" that I could find in the article. Thanks for the suggestions! (AggieKelly18 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

I just noticed a couple small or grammar-related mistakes in this article, but otherwise it's very informative and the pictures are beautiful! There are different approximate lengths listed for the summary and in the Head section of Morphology. Another thing I noticed was that there is a confusing sentence in the Head section of Morphology. I would suggest changing the current phrasing to "unlike a Calliphorid fly, whose arista is plumose the entire length...". I just thought that made more sense. The last thing I noticed was that in the first sentence of the Thorax section of Morphology, I would change the comma to a semicolon since both sections of that sentence are complete thoughts. Your article is wonderful! Good job. --Cecimontes (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input! I have changed the approximate length in the summary section to reflect the range provided in the Morphology (Head) section. As our sources gave us slightly different measures, we will include the broader range to provide a (hopefully) more representative range for the approximate size of S. bullata. We found that different sources varied slightly, based on the information available at the time the research was compiled, etc. (a few of the sources are quite old and may have outdated information, but we did what we could!). I have also made the other corrections you suggested by changing the phrasing in the Morphology section as well as fixing the comma error. Thanks so much! Ecbraley (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is very informative and well organized but I couldn't help but notice the last section "other research." The information is good; however, you may want to elucidate the purpose of the study, so that those who aren't entomologists will understand(ie the purpose and accomplishments of the study. The photo gallery is excellent.Mnf238 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I attempted to reorganize the "Forensic related research" section slightly and provide more details regarding the studies included there, and tried to better explain the significance of the study included in the "Other research" section. Hope that helps and thanks for your comment. Ecbraley (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great job! I really like all the details including the life cycle! I think you could use maybe a threshold estimate or a PMI to become just a little more detailed if needed? Other than that very impressive...great work! Sarahgrace12 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and great advice! I'm working on compiling some ADD and temperature data for S. bullata and will try to have it up by tomorrow. Thanks again! Ecbraley (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall the page is fantastic! You did a really great job! Some things that I saw that might need to be looked at is mainly that throughout the article you have links to other pages that do not work. The words in red throughout the article mean that there is no where that the page can link so the best way to fix that would be to unlink them or just delete the [[brackets]] around the word. An example is in the Morphology: Thorax section you linked to sternopleural and postscutellum which both do not have pages linked to them. It is an easy fix! Great job!--Aggiegirl5039 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! We're glad you enjoyed our article. We are aware that the red articles are 'dead end' links. Though there are no Wikipedia pages about those topics right now, when one is created our link will turn blue and link to it. Thanks again! Kimberlyaggie2010 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)KimberlyAggie2010

Overall, this article is absolutely fantastic. It's probably one of the best articles I have read so far from our class. Your efforts surely show! The gallery has some really good and clear pictures. And I really liked the table with the ADH and ADD for each developmental stages. However, I do have some suggestions. In the head section under Morphology, "the arista(hair) of the antenna is plumose(feather-like hairs present)" seems a little redundant. I would change that to "the arista(hair) of the antenna is plumose(feather-like) only at the base..." Also, I would try to remove all the red links because they don't really link to any existing pages. Other than that, great job on the article! --ShikhaY (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you suggestions and compliments! I will make that change in the Morphology section. As far as the red links, please refer to the response to Aggiegirl5039 above. Thanks again and we're glad you enjoyed it! Kimberlyaggie2010 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Kimberly

You guys did a great job; however, I do have a few concerns with grammatical errors and the way you guys worded a few things. Other than that you guys did a wonderful job on researching. The development & feeding habits section was written & researched well. The natural predators sections could have been expanded since you guys made a section for it all on its own. Under the forensic related research it could have just been titled "Research" and the sentence "...these flesh flies have been the focus of many forensically related studies," change forensically related studies. It does not sound good. It could have been worded "these flesh flies have been the focus of forensic entomology." Also do not put "Obviously" at the beginning of any sentence when you are researching. (Behind #18) Still discussing the section forensic related research, in the sentence "Others maintain that while maggot mass temperature may be evaluated," who is the "others" and what does "that" stand for in this sentence? Please be specific when doing research. It makes a BIG difference. Also, the link does not work for Accumulated Degree Days and there is no link for Accumulated Degree Hours. (Under the temperature datasection). The sentence "Information then used to calculate the overall degree days or degree hours accumulated during the insect's entire life cycle." The words accumulated & entire should be taken out...we know degree hours/days are accumulated, and we know it is the entire life cycle. That is understood. These words are unnecessary. Overall you guys did a good job & everything else looked good. Good job! Edbe (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your stopping by and leaving your comments. However, I find that several of your suggestions would not benefit the article. For instance, we specifically clarified that S. bullata has been involved with many forensic-related research experiments because it has been... saying just "research" does nothing to explain the scope of the research completed. Furthermore, it should not be claimed that S. bullata has been the "focus of forensic entomology," as it has not been. Many insects are the "focus of forensic entomology" - our fly hasn't even been researched all that much. Also... there is a link for "Accumulated Degree Hours" - it is in the paragraph above the section with the link for "Accumulated Degree Days." The links are red because pages have not been made yet regarding the related information. The links will turn blue if and when those pages are created. Regarding your last suggestion, not everyone reading these articles knows that degree hours/days are "accumulated," and "entire life cycle" is to show that the degree hours are being accumulated from the egg stage to pupae (ie. "entire" life cycle). Nevertheless, thank you for stopping by and sharing your opinions. Ecbraley (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)