Talk:Drosophila mettleri

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jillian Shah. Peer reviewers: Andrewoh29, Hannahwhite97, JustinLevin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review Comments
Hi Jillian! Nice job on this article! It’s so awesome to see how far your article has come from when I first saw it. The article is heavily referenced, broad in its coverage, and detailed with images, all Good Article criteria details. I would suggest you have an image in the Taxobox, so that way it can be pictured when someone Google searches the fly. For the subsection labelled “Not all are Monogamous”, I would include some more details about the study – namely, the conditions and the other types of mating that are seen, if not just monogamy. I would also argue that you have too much in your overview, and not all of it is incredibly necessary to be stated in the overview, as you go over it later anyways. I would suggest taking out the sentences: “Drosophila mettleri contains a p450 gene family and a target gene within this family is upregulated in expression. CYP28A1 upregulation has enabled this fly to detoxify toxic chemicals found in the rotting liquid of cacti hosts and to use otherwise lethal soil as a nesting site.” and “Due to physical geographic barriers between Sonoran Desert flies, gene flow explains speciation.” The former sentence is too complex and overly detailed, in my opinion, and will serve much better to be elaborated on in the sections themselves. Overall, great article! I am eager to see where it ends up, down the road! andrewoh29 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Easily noticed is the absence of a picture of the fly, which is understable if there isn’t one available on wiki commons, but if it’s possible to get a picture that would make this more complete. Almost all of the sections were out of order, so I went ahead and moved them around in order to meet the article format expectations. Additionally, there were a few paragraphs in “description and sister species” that were not cited, so if possible, maybe cite those. Also, the distribution section is really dense, so it would be helpful if that could be broken down into subsections to help readers. Y.shiuan (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I edited the first several sections to improve clarity, as some of the sentences were mildly confusing and unclear. Additionally, I went through and edited for simple grammar mistakes. My main piece of advice is to carefully read over sentences within the body text and make sure you're conveying what the article says, as well as read over the headings to ensure the page follows an overall logical, clear organization. I would also change the bullet point list under the Description so that it is in paragraph form. This article contained a lot of interesting information about this fly, and you did an excellent job of highlighting why it is different than other flies! Olivia.urso (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The main thing I changed on this article was changing the structure and some content of the overview/introduction section. I combined paragraphs to make it more concise, and moved some information to other sections. I don't think the banana fact is necessary, but it is interesting so I left it. I also added the Insect and Diptera classifications to the talk page. I reorganized part of the genetics section. I recommend changing the format of the Description section because it seems to focus too much on Drosophila nigrospiracula, and changing all bullet-pointed sections to paragraphs. Overall, this is a very detailed and descriptive wikipedia page!Hannahwhite97 (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

For my edits, I went ahead and hyperlinked more terms that could be useful for readers to read into. Additionally, I did some minor sentence re-wording for some phrases, and I made organizational switches (namely, in your ‘Physical distinction between related species’ subheading. Even if you couldn’t find pictures of your species of fly in particular, you can use any photo of Drosophila to highlight the physical features that you describe. I think it would be great if you could elaborate more on the phylogenetic relationships of D. mettleri to the other flies that are closely related to it. It would complement the other sections well. Additionally, it could be in your best interest to elaborate more on your section about enemies, possibly identifying other enemies apart from just parasites.

Overall, a well-written, well-referenced article Great job! --andrewoh29 23:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is very informative and contains a wide variety of well-written sections! Going through, I made some slight word changes and altered a couple sentences to keep them concise. For future improvements, I would recommend working on adding some images that would be helpful for the reader as they are picturing the physical description of the fly. JustinLevin 10:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an extremely thorough, well-written article. I appreciate your ability to synthesize such dense and complex information in an understandable and clear manner. I added more hyperlinks to clarify and give meaning to some of the more advanced topics you cover. Also, I added some sub-headings to the Distribution and Host Plant sections to make your work more focused and appear to be more concise. The amount of depth is impressive, but try to synthesize the information in as concise a way as possible to fit proper encyclopedic standards. Grammar and sentence structures were great: just make sure to vary your word choice more often. Overall a great body of work! Eengermann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)