Talk:Calliphora livida

Small Capitalization Errors
I believe Blue Bottle Flies should be capitalized and forensic entomology should be not. Why didn't you include the temperatures that this fly is found at as an adult from the lecture notes? Maybe just go back through and look for the minor capitalization and punctuation errors. Also, maybe look through the textbook and lecture notes about more forensic entomology information about the fly. Looks very nice though in all. Lamd86 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I have already changed the capitalized forensic entomology, as well as added temperature ranges of the adult. Regarding the capitalization of blue bottle flies, it is actually not capitalized in the textbook or Wikipedia, so that has not been changed. Thank you once again for your suggestions. Deepa.lalu (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Helpful Input
Great job. This article contained a lot of helpful information! The only thing that I think would aid this article is more information on how they interact with other species (who they compete with, are they symbiotic or parasitic to or for other species, and how they aid for pest humans beside PMI).I really thought that your PMI information was thorough and made very easy to understand. Again, I just want to say good job for the well written article.Gothikcow21 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. This species remains relatively under-researched, but we hope to add more information as it becomes available. Thanks again!Celi28 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this article did a great job of describing the life cycle! However I think there should be more on identifying this specific species. There are alot of characterists that were given that were shared with other species but not very many that were specific of ''C. livida'. Linde17 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We had a lot of trouble finding information specific to this species. However, we're still working on finding information and hopefully we'll have more up in the next few days.  Thank you!  --Cecimontes (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is well orginized and presented nicely. If at all possible I might include some details on mating habits. For example, time of year and other characteristics associated with mating/reproduction.Mnf238 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We are currently working on finding as much information on C. livida as is available, but a lot of what we have found does not discuss mating habits. However, I do agree that mating habits/reproduction is a relatively important aspect of the biology of C. livida and should be included. Anything we find on the subject will be added. Thank you for your great suggestion! Celi28 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the article. I just have a few suggestions. As you read through the article there are quite a few red words. The red words indicate an internal link to a Wikipedia page that does not exist. Often times a page will exist but by a different name than the word you are using in your article. When you want to make a link show something, but link to a different page it is called "piping" (WP:PIPE). If you cannot find an article that will link to the words in red than the best thing to do would be to delete the brackets around the word. The words blue bottle flies are red on several different instances. Once you have linked to the word already in the article, you need not to link to the same word again. To go on with that the sentence reads: “Calliphora livida is a member of the family Calliphoridae, the blow flies. This large family includes the genus Calliphora, the blue bottle flies.” The link from blue bottle flies directs to the page of Calliphora latifrons which is a species and not a genus which is a little confusing. Back to the “Adult” section the sentence reads “Calliphora livida is a member of the family Calliphoridae, known as the blow flies.” If you entered blow flies as blow flies than it would retain the name of blow flies but redirect you to the Calliphoridae site. This might seem a little bit confusing, so feel free to ask me and I’ll try to answer your question. Overall you did a great job! I enjoyed reading the article.--Aggiegirl5039 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion! We went through and fixed the link so that it now should link to the Calliphoridae page instead of the C. latifrons page. We also removed the red links. Thanks again for the suggestion. Celi28 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a Few Ideas
This was a great article; it was very detailed and informative. One thing I noticed was that under the heading Importance, the forensic and post-mortem interval paragraphs could maybe be combined because they contained similar information. Also, some of the information under the post-mortem interval could be helpful in describing the life cycle. I know this is a group project, and it can be difficult to combine each member's contribution. These are just suggestions! Lastly, under the life cycle section, you could mention they have holometabolous development. Hope this helps! Overall, you did a great job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mereharton (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your input! I agree that certain parts of our article are redundant, and I will work on combining them.  Also, holometabolous development sounds like a good idea.

--Cecimontes (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to leave a couple of ideas to think about concerning your article. First, I have to say it is very well written and composed. When I came upon the life cycle and development section discussing the eggs, I was a bit confused about "telescoping segments." I was wondering if there were some better way you can describe how these eggs are laid? Just a thought. My next idea would be to move the Control of the species section so that it precedes all of the sections it follows at the moment. I believe it is less important than medical and forensic importance, and should therefore be placed before both of those. That way, your paragraphs descend with level of importance! But again, great job! SjLangsta (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing to our attention the confusion with the term "telescoping segments". We have elaborated on the term so that it may be better understood by the general public. Also, we decided we would keep the Control section at the end simply because it seems fitting to discuss its importance before explaining how it can be controlled. Thanks again for your suggestions! Celi28 (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Very informative article. It was well written, flowed well, and very balanced. I have a few comments though: (1) The introduction was a bit brief. Although it covers the basics, you may want to elaborate a bit more. (2) The development section also is short. You may want to combine it with another section or expand this section, because it doesn't fully stand on it's own as is. (3) I noticed that PMI is a heading on it's own. Making this a subheading under Forensic Importance may add to your page's organization. (4) Other than those few organizational things, I think your page was excellent. Your strongest attribute is definately how balanced it appears. Great Job! lagriega (talk) 9:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing
This article was very informative; it contained many facts I was not familiar with. I did notice that in the Medical/economic section C. lividia needs to be italicized in the second to last sentence. I also noticed that "blowfly" needs to be changed to "blow fly" in the Post-mortem interval section. Lastly, I would suggest combining all of the subheadings of the Life cycle section in to one large paragraph instead of multiple small sentences. I think it would help with the flow of the article. Other than that it looks great. DianaW10 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your suggestions. I've already changed the blowfly to blow fly and we are definitely going to work on condensing our paragraphs. Thanks again. Deepa.lalu (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I really liked this article- found it to be one of my favorites, actually. I thought it had a lot of useful scientific information about the species, but also made it very easy to read for those who do not have an entomological background. The Importance section was very thorough and detailed but still understandable. The Forensic section had a lot of useful and interesting information and worded so that any one reading would be able to understand. The only complaint I would have is the Introduction paragraph. It is rather short, considering how much information is in your article. Overall, I thought you guys did a great job! Blair1126 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

suggestions
hey guys great job on the page. I really like the three pictures in the Discussion section, they really add a lot to the page. I also enjoyed they way you set up your sections it helps the page flow well. There were a few things I saw; you have a few links to pages that don’t exist (the ones highlighted in red). Also the last sentence in your introduction, ‘C. livida is an entomologically important fly species because of its importance in post-mortem interval estimation.’, seems like it might need to be reworded to maybe ‘ C. livida are an entomologically important fly species because they are useful in determining a post-mortem interval estimation. ‘ otherwise your page look really great, good job guys.Smurph7282 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for offering your input on ways that we can improve our page. We removed the red links and the sentence you suggested we reword has been rephrased. Thanks again for your help. Celi28 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts
Overall this page was good but I do have some suggestions. I think your introductory paragraph could use an interesting fact to grasp the reader into wanting to read the entire article. Also if you can you should link C. viridescens to add a connection to your page.Fullmetalrpg (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is well written and very informative. That being said I would like to see more about the gestation length of C. Livida eggs. You may also want to include a statement or two about the effect temperature has on the life cycle of the insect. --Hoagiebear (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is overall pretty good but needs a little work. The pictures in the description section are helpful, but I would suggest a using a written description and keep the pictures as a supplement. A couple of suggestions for the Life cycle and Reproduction section is to include information that would better explain where the eggs are layed on a carcass( and if the insect has a preferential location) and remove the sentences at the beginning of each of the paragraphs in the developmental stages section describing the egg, larval, and pupal stages and replace them with a sentence linked to holometabolus developement.Jamesciii2009 (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

wrong sentence?
"While flies and larvae can be beneficial to humans through the judicial system, they can also do a lot of harm" while i am not a native english speaker, i cant make any sense of this sentence? is there some context that makes this sentence logical? i havent found anything in dictionaries. Hydraulik44 (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)