Talk:Calliphora latifrons

Discussion
Talk: Calliphora latifrons I inserted a couple of links on this page. I think it could use a few more. Robertsonza7 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The page was very informative and easy to read, and the Identification section was great! However, I think that if some pictures were added to the page it would add a lot more to the article, and give the reader an actual visual to look at. I also think that there are a few too many links on the article, and if some of the red links, and possible a few blue ones, were taken off it would give the article a better apperance. Good jobs guys!! (AggieKelly18 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for looking over our article. We did have three visuals to help with the identification but can not seem to get them to stay up on the page, if you know how to get them to stay up on the page that would help alot. Linde17 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

THANKS! for all of the comments... I can tell that our article looks better with the trimming. If you have anything else to suggest please tell us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonza7 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will try to address them as soon as possible.Robertsonza7 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Very Well written article! It was informative and interesting to read. Everything was broken down in a logical manner that was easy to understand. I especially liked how in the indentification section, all the information was bulleted! The only suggestions I would give would be in the very first paragraph maybe adding a little bit more about the geographical distribution-. In the very first paragraph, the sentence-"This fly adheres to a particular environment and ecosystem that has limited geographic distributions in North America", I can understand if there is not much information about it out there, but maybe a little more elaboration could help. Also in the same paragraph, the sentence- "C. latifrons has not been widely used, however, for forensic applications as of yet" sounds really choppy and weird. Other than that, I think yalls article was great! Great Job! SH810 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Some very important points were raised, but the introduction only introduces the subject matter and has already been docked because of its length. Therefore, I am going to keep the geographic wording the same.The I'll try to fix everything else. Thanks again! Robertsonza7 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits

 * In your future research section, you spelled specimens wrong.

[ [ blow-flies | blow flies ] ]
 * In your Importance in Forensic Entomology section, you can link to blow flies by typing w/o any spaces between characters & symbols except for the space between blow flies:

-It should look like this: blow flies


 * "Life Cycle", "Importance in Forensic Entomology", and "Future Research" section header-- only the first word of section headers should be capitalized (unless there's a name involved).


 * Instead of linking two-letter words like: mechanical vector, larva stage, and maggot stage, etc. Just link to the important word like vector, larva, and maggot.  These three actually have established pages that you can link to. --Hieu87 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Hieu87

OK thanks for the information! We are in the process of incorporating pictures and I will try to fix all of the grammatical flaws that you outlined. I think I understand what your saying...Robertsonza7 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

SjLangsta (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a few comments concerning your article. In the 'Identification' section, you should add a comma or revise the sentence that begins with "After identifying the family."  Also, you do not need to keep saying Calliphora latifrons.  Instead, once you state the scientific name, you should abbreviate it to read C. latifrons.  This prevents redundancy and making your paper sound repetitive with big words.  In the life cycle section it might be a good idea to make 'larva' plural; it should read 'larvae stage.'  Finally, in the forensic importance section it would probably be a good idea to move the last sentence discussing the scarcity of your fly.  When you start explaining why the fly is important forensically, this sentence should precede what you are about to speak about.  Overall, good article!  I'm impressed!

You raise some important points and we will see to them shortly. Robertsonza7 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was very informative, particularly with all the physical characteristics and identification information provided. I really appreciated the level of detail in that specific section. However, I found some awkward sentence structures that could easily be fixed to improve the article. In the identification section the sentence, "After identifying it as the order Diptera (flies) then Entomologist need to...", a noun marker should be added and it should probably be changed to "..then the entomologist needs to..". Another similar problem occurs in the sentence, "After identifying the family now Entomologist can.." which should become "..now the entomologist can...". Also, within the Future Research section, the sentence, "Possibilities of research in the field of maggot therapy are possible", sounds a little redundant because of the repitition of the word "possible". I hope these suggestions help! APad77 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok! gonna get on it as soon as possible. Robertsonza7 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing in second person
In the identification section, you say "you" alot. You should probably not be addressing the reader but say maybe.... when Entomologists identify, they... or something like that. Also, in the first paragraph, the words Insect and class run together and need a space. It is a great paper! Penn195 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I will be rewording the "you" to make it flow better! Linde17 (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Your article was very informative. Your identification section is great and you did a good job explaining the flies importance in the different areas of forensic entomology. The only suggestions I have are you mention that the flies have a limited geographic distribution to North America and later mention that the distribution patterns limit the fly to distinct regions in North America. I would explain what distinct regions these flies are found in and what is it about the C. latifrons that limits it to these regions such as weather, geography, or something else they need to survive. In your lifecycle section, you use 3 different names for the larva stage; stage, maggot stage, and larva stage. I would just use one or two for clerity. The final thing is are there any specific pathogens that C. latifrons is known to transmit; if so, I would list out a specific example. I only saw some minor changes, other than that, great work. Aggento10 (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on our work. I will try to address the problems that you outlined as soon as possible.Robertsonza7 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Revision
I read over your article and everything looks well done. For the introduction it seems just a little lengthy. I feel that the discussion of the possible different names and what they each may mean or come from could be split into another section. Also when talking about the characteristics of the fly in the intro it seems a little awkward in structure. Those sentences could be re-worded or added to the identification section. Undercover agent (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK! this is my section, I'll revise it. THANKS!Robertsonza7 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I also had a minor suggestion about the intro, Since yall already have the taxonomy box on the side of the page, its not really neccesary to list them out in the introduction, this can help yall shorten the paragraph a bit--Anniemto (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro, Life Cycle, Forensic importance
In the intro you have C. latifrons in quotations. It should be italicized. Also I am confused where you say that C. latifrons has exclusive characteristics important to its identification, but then you go on to say that these characteristics may or may not be found in other species and that they are similar to other calliphorids.

Under Life Cycle I just made a few edits to sentence structure and italicized in places where you forgot.

Under importance in forensic entomology, you say that after insect identification a time of death can be calculated. Make sure you specify that forensic entomologist do not determine a time of death. They determine a time of colonization which can then be used in an investigation to estimate a time of death.LMS-ento431 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)LMS-ento431

Hey! these are all good ideas and I will get on it as soon as possibleRobertsonza7 (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you confused about on the characterists? This is my section and I would really like to fix this confusion. Thank you for helping! Linde17 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This was a very well written article in the sense of displaying "fast facts" in a fluid manner. The article makes it easy for the reader to find exactly what they are looking for without having to sift through "article length enhancers". I particularly enjoyed the identification section. It enabled users not only to see an accurate description of the pictures, but also how each similar species was identified and how they could possibly differ. However, adding subheadings to the Life Cycle section such ass egg, larva, etc. could add to the organization of the article and make it easier for readers to find specific information. 0&#39;.12.1.0.N (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and we appreciate your inputRobertsonza7 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This was a well written informative article. As I was reading I noticed that the full name, Calliphora latifrons, was used throughout the Life cycle section of your article. Once the name has been mentioned in a paragraph, from there on out you can abbreviate it as C. latifrons, as you have done in most of your sections. Just a suggestion. Russtud82 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the full name to us we will be fixing that! Linde17 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, i would link Postmortem interval in this section it's linked in the others. It wouldn't hurt to link that one too. And keep trying to get the pictures up we did ours through Wikicommons. Baumgartner aggie09 (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you that is a really good idea! Linde17 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
The overall aspect of this article that I really enjoy is that it utilizes a flow of information that is quite unlike the other Arthropod wikipedia article. It's distinctive. I would suggest bettering the introductory section by utilizing paragraphs, but the rest of your methods are great and keeps the reader's attention. Good work ! Nanayaagh (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and we will see what we can do about bettering our introduction! Linde17 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)