Talk:Hydrotaea

Taxonomy Box
I think you should consult this page: Taxobox to help make your taxonomy box look more professional --Hieu87 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the introductory paragraph about your species should be moved above the contents box in addition to the Taxonomy box being moved to the right hand side of the page. Look at some other pages from our class for example. Charlejo (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hieu87 and Charlejo. We greatly appreciate your help and input on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C19872010g (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This article was by far the most interesting and well written that I have witnessed. There were no punctuation errors or misspelling. The common species list of Muscidae was well organized and easily readable to the general public. I also enjoy the pathogens list provided and found eat to be very informative for my studies. You even touched up on the subjects of competition relationships with other organisms. Well done and congratulations.Gothikcow21 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your page. I feel like I really learned a lot about the Hydrotea species. I really liked that you added a lot of additional information about the species and not just its forensic importance. I enjoyed the section about its use in agriculture, however, you might have put that into a different section besides lifecycle, such as making a more broad importance category and sticking it in their with subheadings. Just a suggestion but looks really great and very interesting! Dentalgirl (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Dentalgirl! The reason why the agricultural segment can be found under the lifecycle portion of the page is that it incorporates the Hydrotaea larva, which of course is part of the lifecycle itself. I hope this clarifies the situation, and thanks again!--C19872010g (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I really enjoyed reading your page. If I was doing research and came across your page, I would find it very helpful and informative. The only comment I have refers to the predators section. The last sentence of the section does not seem to flow with the first sentence. When reading this sentence, the reader would either have to know or assume that house fly larvae inhabits manure. I think this sentence should be more clear or removed all together.--Fjessie05 (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the quote in the opening abstract completely necessary? It seems to me that this quote really does not add much help to the article overall, and is somewhat distracting in its abruptness and placement. It could be moved down to the Introduction, but I seriously think it would be better for your group if the quote was just removed. It adds nothing of real value, and it can be easily paraphrased so as to not waste one of the two allowed quotes that are given. Thanks for listening! (--Rockymtv25 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

I think your page is very well put together, it was easy to navigate through and had a lot of good information. There were a few cosmetic problems I saw; in your species list some of your citations are in parenthesis where as some aren't. Also you have links to pages that don't exist. For example all of your species are linked and there aren't pages for them and a few others throughout the page. Other then that it all looks good.(Smurph7282 (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for your input, I have changed the corrections. --Ashaggie09 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is very thorough and is well organized. I was impressed by your extensive species list, and your pathogens section. I suggest that you double check and make sure that every statistic and statement that you obtained from some other source is referenced. For example ''The average size for the genus is 6.5-8.5 mm for males and 5.75-7.5 mm for females. They range from a very light brown to bluish black with large, red eyes and plumose antennae''. This was also particularly notable in the remainder of the physical appearance section and the first part of the lifecycle description. Also, make sure all your internet/ website or internet linked references have a title, author if you can, URL and date that you accessed it.

I understand that the quote about diptera's importance is meant to highlight the importance of Hydrotaea, but Diptera encompasses many families, orders, genera and species. Hydrotaea is only a genus however and only constitutes a very small part of Diptera so I would suggest removing this quote.

Furthermore, I understand how difficult it is to find pictures but they could bring greater understanding and interest to your page. For additional suggestions you can always submit you page for peer review. Overall a very nice job though. Blm2010 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, we will take them into consideration, especially the pictures! --Ashaggie09 (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys did a very good job on this page. One thing I did see was the vectoring of mastitis. Did the research show that the cows were actually infected with the bacteria and it caused mastitis or did they just find it. Because many arthropods will carry microorganisms, but they can't be a vector unless them transmitting it actually causes the disease. Baumgartner aggie09 (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Baumgartner aggie09. In this study, flies were doctored with bacteria and were then allowed to come into contact with the udder region of cattle. In the study, certain cattle developed bovine mastitis. Secretions from the cows were examined, and traceable bacteria from the experiment could be found. For further reading please reference the article "Summer mastitis experimentally induced by Hydrotaea irritans exposed to bacteria" which can be found on the reference section on the lower portion of the article. Once again, thank you for the comment, and I hope this clarifies any confusion. --C19872010g (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is very well written, I can tell you all put a lot of time and effort into researching. The one thing that I think should be worked on a little more before the article is absolutely complete is talking about why the Ophyra species are now referred to as Hydrotaea. When you search for Ophyra sp., it automatically redirects to your page. However, throughout the article not once is there a mention about Hydrotaea and Ophyra being used interchangeably and why. Other than that, you all did a wonderful job! RxAggie246 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am working on contacting the Ophyra creator to figure out this problem. Their page should not be directing you to our page. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --Ashaggie09 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on a well done page. This is one of the better introductions that I've had a chance to read. This page had a good balance of the general topics and specific details. The only thing I would considered editing is defining what "trimorphic facultative to dimorphic obligative carnivores" means. Slaytwebeling (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I re-worded that whole section to make it easier to understand. Let me know if you still think it needs a better definition. Thank you very much for your comment. RodeoAggie (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In the pathogens section, it would be beneficial if the type of disease transmission (mechanical or bacterial) were noted and how exactly this transmission takes place. Jklein08 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, JKlein08. I went ahead and added a little more information on how the study was accomplished, in an attempt to clarify the section.--C19872010g (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This page offers great information about Hydotaea, however there are two sentences that I suggest be revised. The first sentence, "Hydrotaea are located worldwide including the entire United States and are commonly found on excrement in summer months," repeats itself and should be split up. If it is located worldwide, then the United States is already implied, and the "found on excrement" should probably go under life cycle, or in a separate sentence. In the same intro., the fragment in the second to last sentence "vectors of disease as they have found they are connected," should be changed. I propose: "Researchers continue to monitor these vectors of disease as they have been connected with the spread of mastitis." Keep up the good work and thanks for listening. --Quatre127 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Quatre127 for your imput. I have taken your advice and revised those sentences. RodeoAggie (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I researched Ophyra and found a ton of information on Hydrotaea as well since they are very similar and thought to be the same fly in some cases. You could really add more information about Hydrotaea's use as a biological control agent. The fact that they are reared in labs all over the world now to be used for this purpose is far more important than their use in forensics at the moment, in my opinion. LaurenDrzycimski (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article. I would suggest linking to pages within wikipedia for words you have like vector, carnivorous, and many others. Just being able to hit a link to something for a layperson reading this article is a valuable tool; they will get a more informative experience if they can simply follow a link when they're not sure about a word. Have a great day. Ento-Ag (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and comment. We have linked to many more pages now. RodeoAggie (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a great article with alot of info regarding Hydrotaea. In order to correlate with the research yall put in, you should add some pictures to each section. Also, more information regarding the pathology section could be included, I'm sure that portion intrigues many readers. Good work everyone Mliu715 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Minor Edits
Very well-written article, and I am impressed with how consistent the writing is. Your group really did a great job of meshing all of the information together! I found the information to be very relevant and interesting; I just noticed a few minor formatting issues and I have a couple of grammatical suggestions:


 * (1) I noticed that (besides with the quotation) there aren't any reference citations in the introductory paragraphs. I know that the information included here is referenced later, but to be safe I would recommend citing the information here anyways.  I checked on the "Wikipedia:Lead section" page and it strongly suggests including citations in the introduction to avoid all risks of being charged with plagiarism.


 * (2) This is a bit ridiculous to even mention, but there appears to be an extra line-space in the "Lifecycle" section between the first and second paragraphs. This is extremely minor, however, so if your group prefers it that way I don't think it would detract from the article.


 * (3) I believe that the convention is to write the word "Lifecycle" as two words; "Life cycle." However, "lifecycle" is also accepted so this, again, is a trivial detail.  I would just go by what your sources used (which I'm sure you did anyways)!


 * (4) My last recommendation is to change the section heading "Pathogens associated" to "Associated pathogens." It just seems to make more sense to me.

Again, excellent work. I hate to sound so picky by pointing out such minor details. That just goes to show how great the article is! Great work guys! Ecbraley (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, nothing is too minor. I put a few more references in the introductory. As for the extra space, we feel that the two paragraphs are very distinct from each other, but still should be under the same heading. I will look into perhaps putting in a sub-heading. I also fixed the Pathogens Associated to your suggestion. I agree that it does make more sense. Thank you once again for your imput, it was very helpful. RodeoAggie (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was very well written and I found no grammatical errors, but I do have a few suggestions. In the life cycle section you discuss the pupa stage as "taking an extended amount of time" I thought that maybe you could change it and put a general length of time so others who read it understand exactly what "an extended amount of time is." I also noticed that when discussing the larvae you noted that they have "sinuate slits" and I think it would be a good idea to explain what those look like and maybe the purpose of them. Lastly when discussing the larvae again you noted the largest size they can become so you may want to add how small they can be as well. Hopefully this is good input for you guys, overall this article was very interesting and I like the input on what disease is causes towards bovine. Kctaylor (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kctaylor. We took your suggestions into consideration and edited where needed. I hope these edits clarify our page more. Please let us know if there is more we can do. Thanks again. RodeoAggie (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I like how you took the time to list the common species. In the physical description paragraph put a comma between “bacterial fermentation” and “so”. Put the average growth sentence after the varying growth sentence to make it flow better. In the life cycle section, 2nd paragraph put a comma between “the housefly” and “however”. The third sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the life cycle section is a run on. In the predators section shouldn’t it be sp. after hydrotea, not spp. Good research! Charms18 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I fixed the grammer errors and the spp.. Spp. and sp. are basically the same, but we still should have used the same format throughout. As for the growth, one is talking about the larval growth and the other is talking about the adult, so I feel it should be left as is. Thank you again for your imput. RodeoAggie (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your article is very well written and really interesting. There wasn't much I could find to fix, which is a good thing! The only thing I saw was that the word "livestock" in the second paragraph of the introduction had a space between it, making it two words. I'm sure it just got overlooked, but I just thought I'd bring it to your attention.--Karajean88 (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Karajean88. We appreciate your help in bettering our page. RodeoAggie (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very well formatted article. I like the amount of effort you put into listing all the species. One thing i did notice was the inconsistency in your headings. You should only capitalize the first letter of all your headings unless they are proper names. You have one that should be corrected “Associated Pathogens” should be changed to “Associated pathogens” instead. Besides that it looks good. Russtud82 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I have made them all alike.--Ashaggie09 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Job! I just have a couple suggestions. In the first paragraph, watch your commas. Some sentences should read:” They are often found on excrement in summer months, and are therefore generally found in close proximity to livestock. Among the 130 known species in this genus, the most commonly recognized is the dump fly.” The next sentence would sound better if you said “This common name was given because of its ideal landing spot on fermenting feces.” Also the section Life cycle should be two words. Under Life cycle, make sure you put the temperatures in Fahrenheit also. Your page is very informative and well organized. Well done! Tbernzen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your comment. I have fixed the grammatical errors and added the Fahrenheit values. RodeoAggie (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As it was said before, this article is quite impressive and obviously had a lot of research hours put into it! I did find a few things, though. All very minor, I assure you! Mostly just grammatical corrections. The first is in the Intro section, the sentence containing "...in both the economic and public health scene." Since you are talking about more than one, I feel as if that should be made scenes, not scene. (like i said, tiny stuff). I find it highly impressive that you found each specie's "founder" and linked so many of them-- great work! This may be an old question, but can any of these be linked, even now? Seeing as how things are added to Wikipedia so often, it might be a good idea to check daily and see if any of these have been added recently. There is another sentence (I believe in behavior) that seems a bit strange-- "This ranges depending on the species, some are carnivores in all three instars." I think the comma needs to be a hyphen in this case. In Physical appearance, the sentence "However, ... always carnivorous with some strongly cannibalistic." should be reworded, or the grammar adjusted. It kind of disrupts the flow of the page thus far (which is still very impressive!) In Life cycle, "forensic entomologists" can be linked. The sentence containing "Masses of maggots... is not typical" should be "are not typical, since the noun is plural. The very next line says "which is then followed by". Again, should be "are then followed by" because there are multiple instars referred to here. In the sentence "This fly larva, aside... community is considered...."-- There is a comma missing after community; also, it should be relevant to, not in; also, found under, not located under. Your pathogens section is a very impressive section, as well. I like this addition and how it, too, is very well researched. This seems to be a common factor throughout the article! Once again, just a tiny grammatical change -- in the sentence "fluid obtained, thus carried by H. irritans were", there should be a comma after H. irritans. Last one, swear! In the Forensic importance section, the sentence "Hydrotea sp. can be...and third instars, this means..." Either the comma needs to be changed to a period, or means changed to meaning. I liked reading this article. It is very well written, without any strange stops or endings. Each section flows into the next and everything is very well researched. Overall, awesome! Kcatron (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC) kcatron

I am not sure if this really is a "minor edit" and this is directed more to group 23; Ophyra Sp. rather to group 21. I think the page should be unlinked from the Ophyra page because it really dosent show the work put in by the Ophyra group but the Hydrotaea group. The page over all is great. but credit should go where credit is due. Aggie2011 —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Image in Taxobox
The image in the taxobox is labelled Hydrotea dentipes but Jim Lindsey now labels the original source image as Hydrotea diabolus. I will change the name of the taxobox image accordingly.TristramBrelstaff (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hydrotaea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516072203/http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/publications/epubs/eee_00011.cfm to http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/publications/epubs/eee_00011.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)