Talk:Sarcophaga pernix

Taxonomy

That was probably one of the more interesting taxonomy sections out of the articles I've reviewed. I'm surprised there was that much information available about the taxonomy of this species. So good job on that! But the whole page seemed rather short.. for example, there were only two lines of future research? I don't know if there just wasn't much information available on potential future research of this species or not, but the research section just seemed a bit brief to me.Bkret (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the compliments on taxonomy. We will try to address the other suggestions in a timely manner.Ento-Ag (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree, the Taxonomy section and the Importance section were very specific and provided a lot of knowledge to the reader. I also thought the picture was a nice addition. However, the other sections did fall somewhat short. The Life cycle seemed rather short and a little unorganized. But other than othat, I thought it was a great and informative page! Blair1126 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. We have addressed some of your suggestions withthe life cycle section. Ento-Ag (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a group project for our Forensic Entomology class at Texas A&M. The article is over Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis and will hopefully be fully completed on the user page by Wednesday 3/9/09 and up and running live by 3/23/09. We need all the help we can get so if you have suggestions or comments please feel free to leave them. Thanks Aggiegirl5039 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to reviewer of speedy: suggest userfying. Dekimasuよ! 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to students: Once an article is in the article namespace, it's live. --Geniac (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall I thought this was a great article, but to be picky there were a couple of sentences that were worded differently to me. Under the Medical Importance section I thought "Cases like this are few and far between- S. haemorrhoidalis rarely invades living tissue" was a bit too informal for an encyclopedia. Maybe say that those cases are rare and break it up into two simple sentences. Under the Distribution section "Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis is a common species of flesh flies that have been known to appear worldwide in distribution and is commonly found in the United States." is not definite enough. Just say something like they have a worldwide distribution and leave the "have been known" part out. Other than these small wording differences it is a great article.Agg4Lfe (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions! We've tried to re-word the sentences accordingly.Julianna1587 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good article. I did notice, however, that the distribution section is kind of randomly placed between the "Importance" and "Research" sections. I think that this section could probably be moved further up in the article to make the organization a little more logical. Also, as I was one of the students to work on the closely related species, Sarcophaga bullata, I feel like a little more could have been presented on the life cycle of Sarcophagids, if not on the species itself. In doing my research for S. bullata, I noticed quite a bit of information on S. haemorrhoidalis. Otherwise, great article guys. Acreese23 (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article! The only suggestions I have would be to include the treshold temperatures if they can be found. Yall seem to have a relatively large amount of information to pull from. Also, I would try to explain the common name. It doesn't seem to describe the picture of the fly. G16member (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G16member (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the suggestions. Sorry, but the common name of the Flesh Fly relates to its association with carrion and flesh. Not its appearance. Have a great day. Ento-Ag (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Very informative article. Everything seemed well organized, but I did notice that the fact about S. haemorrhoidalis being the first fly to a corpse in wet weather because of its ability to fly during rains was repeated twice. Once under description and once under forensic importance. Besides this little catch, everything else looked great! Good Job! Brock1732 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Brock. We'll try to make the article less redundant! Julianna1587 (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tag

There was a speedy tag placed on this article as "blanked by author", but (1) I had also worked on the page, and (2) the "author" cut-and-pasted to her userpage, so either way, the histories would have to be merged for GFDL compliance. Speedies had already been rejected on the article, so a lack of content was not an issue, and we were being patient about article development. The cut-and-paste really needs to be merged back here, or at the very least, merged there. Dekimasuよ! 03:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Meigen

You should introduce Meigen's full name before you just use his last name. Also, you could add what his profession was like you did for the two other historical figures you cited. It was just confusing to see "Meigen" without any clues to who he was. You should also do this for the other historical figures mentioned after Meigen. Using only last names doesn't give the reader any info about the person you're talking about. Besides that the article looks good. Lamd86 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the critique. We have made some of your suggested changes. Have a good day. Ento-Ag (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a few changes

Overall, you did a great job. I thought the article was very well-written and informative. I just had a few changes that might make it a bit better. First, you mentioned dipteran several times, and I'm not sure if it is supposed to be capitalized or not. I do not know if it is a proper noun, but you might check on that. Also, under the life cycle section, you talked about how it goes from larvae to adulthood, and then the pupa is discussed separately. I thought it might be beneficial to add somewhere that it goes from the larval stage through the pupal stage to the adult; an everyday wiki user might be confused on the exact order. Furthermore, under importance, you gave the stages in the number of hours, and I thought it might be helpful to put the number of days that is in parenthesis. Lastly, you mention that the maggots can be in semi-aquatic environments twice; it was just a bit repetitive. Those are all small things, but I hope this helped! You really did do a great job. Mereharton (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can only comment on the dipteran capitalization question at the moment, but it is only capitalized if it is in the proper noun form Diptera, otherwise it is an adjective describing the character of being dipteran. Thanks and have a good day. Ento-Ag (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lifecycle and Forensic Importance

Good article. I definitely got a good overview of this species. I had two suggestions for expansion. In the lifecycle section you describe that the fly lays live larvae on the carrion. I think it would be appropriate to describe that it would lay the young in both natural orifices and wound areas. This could help to expand you forensic importance section. The maggot mass in present could be used to locate possible wounds. Also you dicussed that the larvae are voracious, well this could also be used in the forensic importance section as they could feed on larvae that are used more often in forensic investigations. Undercover agent (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your compliments. I chose not to include your first suggestion in the Forensic Importance section because it is a common dipteran trait for tiny first instar larvae to feed primarily on wounds and natural body openings. Sarcophagids are not usually the first flies to colonize a corpse, anyhow. Concerning your second suggestion, I'm not certain if the word "voracious" is synonymous with "predacious". I will check with the author of the Life Cycle setion and make according changes if they are necessary. Thanks again for your suggestions!Julianna1587 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article guys. I love the fact that yall have so many sources and the extensive research that you have put into this particular species. The only thing that I might want to add is that Sarcophagidae along with Calliphoridae and Muscidae are species of major significance and that studies conducted in South Carolina and Hawaii showed that Sarcophagids were the first species to arrive at carrion followed by species of Calliphoridae. Fantastic work with the page.Jcsaucier (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, however, we haven't located the research you speak of. We will try to locate it and evaluate its relevance to our species. Have a great day. Ento-Ag (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall your article is very good! The section about medical importance was very informative. The only thing you might want to change would be in the sentence "Because s. haemorrhoidalis rarely invades living tissue, cases such as this are not seen often" to rewording the last part. Maybe instead" Because S. haemorrhoidalis rarely invades living tissue, cases regarding this are not often seen." I enjoyed your article guys.Ashtyndenise (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. We appreciate your suggestion! Julianna1587 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Your page looks good except for a few grammatical errors. For instance, I would delete the comma you have after "necrotic" in the second para under "medical importance". Also, you should not have both words in each hading capitalized, only the first. Aimaggie (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It has been fixed. Ento-Ag (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that a citation is required for the Research paragraph and you need to change Pape 11 to Page 11 on the last sentence. The whole paper was amazingly well written with good syntax and interesting details. I fully enjoyed reading the entire artile but the taxonomy page really stood out for me.Fullmetalrpg (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the taxonomy compliment. We have fixed the citation issue. Have a great day. Ento-Ag (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article! There was one thing that was kind of confusing: the sentece in the "medical importance" section that starts out "They range from aural..." I know you are refering to the myiasis cases, but instead of saying "they range from" possibly just reverse the structure to "Four children in Israel suffered from aural myiasis caused by S. haemorrhoidalis..." and somehow tie in the schnouzer incidence?Trent1229 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliment and suggestion; I changed that sentence slightly. Julianna1587 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article had very specific information considering there is not a lot of information on the flesh flies. So great job on working with what you had! The only thing I can think of that would enhance the appearance of the page is the addition of more pictures. Other than that it's great. Celi28 (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. At this time, we do not have any other photographs that would contribute additional views. Ento-Ag (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good article. One thing I noticed is that, in the search bar, if only s haemorrhoidalis or s. haemorroidalis is searched, it says no page exists for the species. You could create those pages and then automatically redirect them to your page.Jklein08 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I am currently trying to implement those changes but I have to enlist the aid of an administrator before I can get it done. Excellent advice, thanks. Ento-Ag (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey just a side note to all of you, you can indent your messages (proper etiquette is to indent to whomever you're responding to, instead of creating a line break and a new paragraph) by using : at the beginning of a line (like I just did in this message). Also, please sign your posts at the end of your message. It makes things easier to read on the wiki and its sorta the "norm".

Also, to create a redirect to this article you don't have to be an admin. You just create a new page at whatever title you want to redirect here and type in #REDIRECT [[Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis]]. Whenever somebody visits that page, they'll be redirected automatically to this article. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I typed in for the redirect and I got the message I put on the notice board. I 'm not sure why. Thanks for the help.Ento-Ag (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure why you got that message. In any case, there are redirects to this article now :-) Killiondude (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Killiondude. And thanks for letting us know about the signature issue. I believe I have fixed them all now. Have a great day. Ento-Ag (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, great job! This article was very well written and informative. Your strongest sections are definitely your importance sections. Organization was on target as far as headings, subheadings, etc. I did notice maybe a few grammatical error, but nothing drastic. The only other thing I noticed that might have been interesting to add were any criminal cases your species might have been involved in. I know there is not a lot of research on the subject, but it's definitely an interesting area to your Forensics section if any of them were famous. Overall great job! lagriega (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)