Talk:Drosophila silvestris

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): Mmhua. Peer reviewers: Hvmoolani, Rebeccaspell, OstapKukhar.

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

Peer review
16 October 2019 Great work by the author who has set the foundation for this Wiki article. The research that you have performed and added is greatly appreciated. The sections you wrote on the mating behavior is quite strong and informative. The citations you use are also well supported and thoroughly distributed, which is very important. It is nice to have the images spread thorughout the article even if they are not of the fly. I have gone through and edited the article by rewording setences, adding hyperlinks for scientific terms that are not known by the common human, and added some sentences. One region that I have completely reworked was the introduction. It is important to include some physcial and geographical characteristics of the fly so that the reader immediately is able to place the fly in their mind. I have added this information.

17 October 2019 Very nice job with this article! It is well-researched and has a very good lead section. The only edits I made were small grammatical changes. I added a few additional nouns to add clarity to some sentences where the subject was a little unclear. I also added a few hyperlinks to some of the descriptions (lava flow, “picture-winged”, eclosion, sexual maturity, endemic fauna). I don’t have any suggestions for major edits as this article was very well-done, but one thing that could be added is a few more relevant pictures towards the end to help break up the text a little bit more. Thanks for contributing!

Best article I read about a fly species so far. Well structured, clear, and concise. I don't think having empty section saying that there is no information on the topic is useful. Add them back if you see fit but I think it detracts from your otherwise very good article. Other than that, I made a few small edits here and there (refer to edit history for more details). The pictures are great and make the article a lot more visually apealling. Great work (OstapKukhar (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC))