Talk:Glossina fuscipes

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): RachelXinruHua. Peer reviewers: Christina.lindberg, Montana.sievert, Nikhilaggarwal123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hi RachelXinruHua, would you please not produce articles that have so much wrongly copy-pasted rubbish in it? This was very nearly devoid of usable material. If you base an article on another, similar one, please make sure to clean up material that does not belong in the new one. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC).

Response
Hi Elmidae, publishing the article earlier today was a mistake as was abundantly clear from the state in which you saw it. It was not my intention to produce an article with "wrongly copy-pasted rubbish". I sincerely appreciate the advice and your cleaning up after the mess of a sleep-deprived undergraduate who is merely rusty at editing Wikipedia, not bent on disseminating useless garbage. RachelXinruHua (talk · contribs) 07:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC).
 * I can empathize with the sleep-deprived part :) Thank you for an exceedingly well-referenced expansion! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Edits
Hi Rachel! First, I went through and edited some grammar, reworded awkward sentences, split some long sentences in two, etc. I also added a couple Wiki links. Overall there was lots of information and the article was easy to follow. I noticed however, you used reference number four as the sole source for “physical appearance,” “lifecycle and reproduction,” “distribution and habitat,” and “evolution and taxonomy.” I originally was just going to suggest looking for some other sources to support this material since it was around half your entire page. But I went to the source to check when the information in a sentence I was rewording and make sure I didn’t alter what the authors said in my edits. Following this I became concerned you incorrectly sited some of your material from this source. I was unable to find the information you cited for “physical appearance” and “lifecycle and reproduction” in source four. You’re also missing any citations for the “females” subheading of “physical appearance.” I think these citation edits should be quickly as possible! Also, your sections are out of order compared to how the Diptera Article formats guideline from the Wiki project suggests, so it would be nice if you moved those around to be more in line with the way other Dipteran articles are structured on Wikipedia. If you’re looking to add to this article I think you could easily add sections on protective coloration/mimicry because you mention their colors serve as camouflage in your physical appearance section. A section on mutualism would also be interesting because you touch on their microbiome interaction with symbiotic bacteria!Montana.sievert (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! First of all great job on the content of this article, you had a lot of information that was presented in a clear and straight-forward manner. I edited some sentences to add some clarity and changed some awkward wording, but overall I think it is a great start to a well-written article. I rearranged many of your sections and renamed a couple in order to more closely align with the format outlined on the project Diptera page, and to hopefully make the article flow a little better. I decided to take out the "Biology" heading because it seemed rather vague, and instead made all of the sub-headings separate sections. I agree with Montana above that your citations need attention. I think citation 4 is cited a few too many times, and the use of only one source for the majority of your information could lead to incomplete or biased descriptions. Additionally, citations do not need to be present at the end of every sentence, simply whenever there is an important fact, or at the end of a section. All of the interspersed citations seem a little redundant and make the article seem unnecessarily choppy. I also think citations need to be added for the Female section of the physical description ASAP. Another suggestion would be to find more information on the different parts of the life cycle, as currently you only mention the egg portion of the development. Once these other parts of the life cycle are added, I would make the mating subsection its own separate section. Lastly, I agree with Montana above that a section on protective color/mimicry could be added, and I also think the microbiome section should be expanded if possible, as I have not seen this section in many other flies, so I think its fairly unique. Also a picture should be added if possible! Overall, great job and keep working to make it even better! Christina.lindberg (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article is really well written and has great content. The previous edits that were made on the article are spot on and add to the flow of the article really well. I only made some minor edits in certain sections such as the "Male Physical Description" section and the "Mutualism" section. Other than that, the article had the proper amount of content and flows well. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilaggarwal123 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I loved the format and organized structure of the article. The sources you used were strong and reputable and backed up your arguments succinctly. I have made an addition to the "Food Resources" paragraph and included supplimental information regarding the fly's use of the proline-alanine shuttle, along with a cited source. Good job! Rchiou (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for everyone's feedback. I realize that the excessive citation of a single source may be problematic, but unfortunately it is the most complete guide on the general biology of this fly species at the moment. I inspected the old link and it indeed leads to a Google Scholar page from which nothing can be read, so I have replaced the link with something much more accessible to back the validity of the source. I also significantly expanded the Microbiome subsection (under new section Mutualism) and Life Cycle section per your recommendations. Redundant citations were removed and sections re-organized. The female subsection of Physical Description has been cited properly. -RachelXinruHua (talk · contribs) 05:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC).