Talk:Chrysomya megacephala

Discussion
This article is strong in that it precise and to the point, contain interesting details such as forensic science that attracts readers, and contains a wide range of topics from climate to reproduction to mangos. One thing that interests me is that Taiwanese farmers actually use these flies to help pollinate mangos even though it is usually considered a pest. Y.shiuan (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a well written and thoroughly researched article. Based on many other articles on blowflies and other speices in Diptera, it may be beneficial to add a Life Cycle session. This information would be great to standarize it to other similar articles and will shed light on the complete life cycle rather than just the information included under the "Reproduction section."Hvmoolani (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

One piece of information you might want to add is that Megacephala are usually the first species that show up on a corpse in this region. An aesthetic remark I would like to make is that for me personally the bolded big headings look like the section headings. It makes it seem like there are more than 12 body paragraphs. Bbllr3431 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While the information on this page seems to be thorough, I wouldn't mind seeing a few aesthetic changes to make the page flow more. The first thing I see is all links. Shrinking that or relocating it away from the very top of the page would make the page more "eye-catching". Just one other little thing is I would link myiasis and have a short definition of it when it is presented in that opening paragraph. Other than that it looks great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopps12714 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your page on C. megacephala is very well researched and provides a lot of information. However, there are a few ways you could change it. I would suggest getting rid of the pictures, or grouping them together. The way they break up the smaller segments makes the article very difficult to read. I would suggest removing some of the pictures, as many are blurry or redundant and don't add much to the article. I would also go through and be sure to italicize C. megacephala. Also, go through and use the Wikipedia insert a reference tab, instead of putting them all in parentheses. Your introduction is not a Wikipedia introduction. See this to see what you need for a Wikipedia lead. Finally, I'd suggest finding ways to group the paragraphs under similar headings. Having a huge table of contents is very distracting; it would be much more efficient to have fewer titles and more paragraphs under each section. Other than formatting errors, your article had a lot of information. Change up the formatting and you will be better able to showcase all the information you have and make it easier to read. Dachshundcrazy (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Im so glad this artical was done so well. I love this fly! I was going to make some comments about there not being too many links but then I found the links at the bottom. I do feel it is much more organized without the mass pictures. I also noticed that there are some sections with very few cite links and other with cite links every sentence. This may just be the way you found your information and sources, but the more sources supporting something the better. Unless of course that one article was really just that good. Overall really well done. williamthegreat1 —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Your article has a lot of well researched information but the numerous pictures and the colored blocks really take away from it. It's very distracting and many of the pictures are blurry. Only one picture above your taxo box would suffice. Also, the intro needs to be redone. It does not follow our prof's guidelines and it definitely doesn't follow the wiki guidelines. Just talk about your fly and sum up the article and that would be good. Your group also needs to go back through and italicize everywhere it says C. megacehphala or Chrysomya megacephala. Also, proper inline incitations would be useful. Nice work so far though!KellyA09 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your input. We have begun adjustments that should be complete by Friday. Please do let us know what you think! Thanks again! Aimaggie (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing- I am pretty sure the external links section is supposed to go to pages outside of Wikipedia, instead of to other Wikipedia pages. I think they're supposed to be linked in article instead, and if you already linked those pages inside the article, it's redundant to have them linked again in the external pages. Go here for more info! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input. You made some great suggestions, and we will be editing our page. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekrull (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! This article just came out (today) about your fly: http://texasamcolstattx.library.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/jme/2009/00000046/00000002/art00012 Look into it and see if it gives you any new information that you can include. --Abrundage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.196.130 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your page looks so much better!! Only a few more things to fix! Make sure that your references come directly after the punctuation, with no space in between. Continue working on your lead section. It should summarize the entire article, and be a lot longer than the one you have now. It should be a complete summary without going too in depth. Go here for more info. I'd also look into the external links page and find out what external links encompass. They usually are articles outside of Wikipedia, not to other Wikipedia articles. Last thing, the Mitochondrial DNA section is ridiculously short, and doesn't really have any information in it. I think it would be better to be tacked onto another section, or you should include more information about it. It's not substantial enough to be on its own. You could possibly add it to your forensic science paragraph or something? It just seems like a waste where it is. But you've definitely done a great job at fixing things and listening to advice, good job! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you want to only capitalize the first letter of all your headings unless they are proper names. For example: Geographical distribution.  Dachshundcrazy (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit on Vekrull's talk page copied here: Vekrull didn't remove the content, just simply moved it to a different spot on the page. Also, he did this per my suggestion on the C. megacephala talk page, because I do not feel that the two sentences on Mitochondrial DNA are substantial enough to have an entire heading on their own. I agreed with his edit, as he did not remove the content but moved it to a better location on the page. Because of this, I reverted to his edit, as I feel it was the correct move. Dachshundcrazy (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. I wanted to point out a couple of typos in your 'Appearance' section. I saw you spelled 'distinguished' and 'cheeks' incorrectly, and figured I'd let you all know. Just minor things, really. Other than that, great article; very informative! SjLangsta (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your article is really great and interesting. I just have a few suggestions. For one thing, I think the introduction paragraph needs to be a little longer. You have so much excellent information in your article that you could preface in that paragraph. Also, I think it would make the article smoother if you combined some sections. For example, the information in the subsection "Collection of species in North America" would probably fit better in the "Regions and Areas Found" subsection. The two subsections under "Appearance" could also be combined for better flow. I hope my suggestions help. I am really impressed with how much research and information you have in your article. Please feel free to visit my article, Lucilia mexicana, and let us know what you think. Simonthelion (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your article has obviously been thoroughly researched (39 sources WOW!) and is well written. My first suggestion, (I apologize if it is redundant and you are working on it) is that your introduction does not match the Wikipedia standards and needs to be expanded. Like the peer reviewer said for my group's article, try and include a few sentences of summary from every section of your article. Also, I would suggest that you review some sections of your article and make sure that certain statements are adequately referenced. Still on the subject of references, make sure that every internet references has a date accessed (year-month-day) at the end of it even if it is only the day you posted this page.

Additionally if it is at all possible try to break the See Also section into two columns instead of one long column to prevent excess scrolling. From what I can tell your article is very well edited and free of grammatical errors. Others called for the removal of your pictures, but if you can obtain some high quality photos and put them in areas where they would not break up the article it might brighten up you page. In a wrap up you guys produced a very thorough article that needs only a few tweaks to be even better. Blm2010 (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My only suggestion to this fantastic page, as I have suggested to others, is to include just a few more links within wikipedia in the sections, especially those with words mentioning locations or insect body parts. This would help clarify some terms that some readers may not be familiar with and would be simply convenient as well.--C19872010g (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. Those are excellent suggestions, and changes will be made shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekrull (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I found a couple things you might want to change. I noticed that cheeks is misspelled in the Physical appearance section. Also, in the Developmental rates section I would change one particular sentence to "Development rate is mainly dependent on temperature: the lower the temperature, the slower the larvae develop, and vice versa." I just thought that made a little more sense. Great article! I'm amazed at how many sources you have! A lot of work definitely went into this article. --Cecimontes (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall the article is great! You did a really good job. I have a suggestion that when you want to make a link show something, but link to a different page its called "piping" (WP:PIPE). For example, in your "Geographical Distribution" section, under Regions and areas found you have pipelined to two Wikipedia articles that are not existent. This is shown by the color of the words which are red. Two of the words in that paragraph that are red are synanthropic and Oriental Region. The word synanthropic can be linked to the Wikipedia article Synanthrope by way of the pipeline. When entering that it would look something like synanthropic. The first word is the article that you want to link to|and the next word is the word that you want to show up in your article. This way even though the word is not the exact same one that the Wikipedia article of synanthrope it will still correctly link to the article. Under the “See Also” section there are others that need to be changed or fixed. 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. It really is a great article though!--Aggiegirl5039 (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits
Thank you all for your input. We are working on updates now. Your advice is helpful. Thanks! Aimaggie (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article! I just have a few suggestions that may improve your article.

First of all, I didn't really see many links in the body of your article. Maybe instead of the "see also" section, you can just incorporate all those links into the major writing because that way the reader will know what you want them to focus on when they click the link.

I have also been told that the conclusion section is now against wikipedia guidelines, so maybe delete that section or add it in elsewhere in the article?

Under "collection of species" the citations seem to be mismatched, the reference should go after the punctuation mark.

As mentioned by someone else, the copious amounts of subheadings are a little bit distracting, and at some points, unnecessary. You could even combine sections, like "life cycle" and "development." Also, the subheadings don't really seem organized. Try to move "ecology" higher up and put similar sections closer together, when possible, combining them.

I really like the amount of detail, obvious hard work, and research was put into your article. Great Job! Good luck, I hope my comments help!

amahajan17 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple of suggestions for your article. In the introduction, I would state why your species is important in forensics. Also, several regions were linked and some were not, I am curious as why other regions were not linked. Early in the article, you have stated the genus and the species already, I would suggest that you simply write. C.megacephala. You have done a superb job gathering information regarding this species. Nice work. Euroento (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I am trying to finish these last final edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekrull (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is very reader-friendly and presents the relevant information in an effective manner. The links provided are numerous and very useful, and the only sugggestion regarding links is to link the term 'plesiomorphic' in the 'Regions and areas found' paragraph. Some other suggestions; 'warm weathered' in the introductory paragraph should be replaced with 'warm-weather', 'climates that are warm most of the year' (1st sent. in the Ecology section) could be replaced with a better term or phrase, the ecology section contains many interesting facts, but they are presented in a choppy manner that is very repetitive (the word 'fecundity' is used 5 times in the first 8 sentences), also there is supposed to be a period after the word 'absent' in the same section. Jamesciii2009 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is interesting, but there are rather a lot of grammatical errors that make it hard to read. Without wishing to sound patronising it reads very much as if it's been written by someone for whom English isn't their first language.

Two small examples: "C. megacephala like filth and even lays its eggs..." (mixing singular and plural verb forms), and "preferring to feed on necrophagous material of any kind such as fish, cows and humans" (for a start I'm not sure that necrophagous is being used correctly in the context, because as far as I can tell the word itself means "feeding on dead bodies", but in any case, and assuming that the phrase could just mean "dead bodies", it still implies that fish, cows and humans ARE necrophagous material... which they're not, until they actually are dead).

There are quite a lot of similar examples, I'm afraid. Mostly quite subtle, but jarring to the general reader all the same. HieronymousCrowley (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)