Talk:Leptoconops torrens

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): Steelwull. Peer reviewers: Christina.lindberg, OstapKukhar, Agandhi7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference from Bohart Museum of Entomology
Currently, the reference reads:

Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, Davis, "No-see-ums," http://bohart.ucdavis.edu/bohart.asp?s=insects&f=noseeum, 7/26/02.

That's a dead link. However, I did find a useful document with same title here (without any date). I don't know if it's the same version as the original, but it's useful to readers. So I may edit the References section in a somewhat non-standard way. If someone prefers a different solution, please do it! Oaklandguy (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leptoconops torrens. 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/20050222090941/http://bohart.ucdavis.edu/bohart.asp?s=insects&f=noseeum to http://bohart.ucdavis.edu/bohart.asp?s=insects&f=noseeum

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) 06:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Editing
Hello! Great job so far on this article, you have some great info, citations, and links to other Wikipedia pages. I added a section to the lead section to provide a bit more information on the fly. Try to cite a source in the second paragraph of the lead section. Overall, I think you could work on this section a little more to include some more interesting facts about the fly that would spur people to keep reading. Also, I think it would be helpful to put the first name of "Townsend" in and add a link if he has a Wikipedia page. I also switched larva and adult in the physical description as I think it makes more sense to talk about larva before the adult. I made some minor grammar edits but overall, I found nothing major. The next thing I would do is to try to flesh out the sections a little more because they are mostly quite short. In the physical description instead of just stating that it is similar to another fly, you could talk more in-depth about its appearance. I would especially try to write more in the mating section, because the one sentence does not give a great oversight into the whole mating process. Overall this is a great start but needs some more details to become an excellent Wikipedia article. Christina.lindberg (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Article is well written and informative. I did some editing and proofreading for brevity. I also made the tone more neutral. Ideally, there would be more about mating and behavior of this species in the article. I attempted to find more information on mating to no avail so it may be possible that the literature simply does not exhist. Pictures of larvae and perhaps habitat would add a lot to this article. As with all articles more information would be better but I understand that research literature may be a limiting factor. Overall great job. (OstapKukhar (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC))

The article is very well researched, and the depth of information across multiple different headings is impressive. It was also very well organised! The only feedback is that the citations in the lead section do seem to be a bit lacking. Another thought is that, if you want to improve the quality of the article, you could elaborate on the similarities with other species physiologically, and the comparison with related species that pass diseases. It can be very hard to obtain information about flies like these, particularly if they don’t have any trademark uses or roles, and you have done a great job to create a solid article! Agandhi7 (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)