Talk:Lucilia coeruleiviridis

Untitled
Very good information. I would only reccommend getting a picture and making some links to other pages. Very nice job! Trent1229 (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Trent. We are working on getting a picture and I went ahead and made some more links. Thanks for the comments.Jcsaucier (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review
The introduction does a good job of summarizing the article, but information about medical importance could be added. To strengthen and lengthen the taxonomy section, synonyms of the species could be discussed and elaborated upon. Also, all of the section titles should only have the first letter of the first word capitalized. For example, the section title should be changed from “Distribution and Habitat” to “Distribution and habitat.” There are several section titles that need this change. In the adult appearance section, the sentence “There are also aristae present and plumose in appearance, as well as bristles” is not very clear and needs to be more specific to avoid confusion. In the larval appearance section, the sentence “In each, the larva grows larger and larger, its only function eating until the final growth stage to adult fly” should be reworded. A possibility is: “In each stage, the larva grows larger with its only function being to eat until the final growth stage into an adult fly.” In the second sentence of the life cycle section, the first “is” in the sentence needs to be changed to “are” so the sentence will read “The reason that these maggot mass formations are important is because it can indicate premortem or perimortem trauma.”  Also, the word “necrophageous” is misspelled and should be “necrophagous.”  In addition, the word “necrophagous” could be linked. The sentence “A single fly can lay in upwards of two thousand eggs in its life” could be improved by saying “A single female fly…” and information about the fly’s life span could be included. The first sentence in the medical importance section needs to be clarified by saying “leaving living tissue alone” or “and won’t infest living tissue” instead of “leaving living tissue.” Also in the medical importance section, Lucilia serricata could be linked. In the last sentence of the medical importance section, “health” should be “healthy.” In the forensic importance section, the sentence “The larvae are also the most abundant third-instar calliphorid” can be improved by adding “on a body” or “on a carcass” to the end of the sentence. Also, the time at which the larvae are the most abundant third instar could be discussed as well as if the larvae are predacious or if they are preyed upon. The cultural importance section needs to be expanded and a period needs to be added at the end of the sentence. Details about the fable could be discussed to lengthen the section. The research section is very strong and informative. Lastly, the article could be improved with some pictures, but overall, it flows well. Lam09 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the helpful information. Our page is starting to flow better already!Jcsaucier (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for the suggestions!! A few of the ones missed were corrected in the article. Hopefully it flows better now! As for further discussion on whether or not the larvae are predacious, that we don't know too much about. There isn't ample enough research that will tell us that kind of detailed information, though I do hope the continuing research on this particular fly will bring about further knowledge such as that. And the fable was something mentioned almost just in passing in class one day. I will see if I can get more information on that, though. Again, thanks for the suggestions! Kcatron (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is very well written! I can tell you guys put a lot of time into finding information about this species. There are only two suggestions I have:

1. Under the section "Larval Appearance" the number "3" needs to be spelled out. 2. Under the "Cultural Importance" section, I feel that it would be really interesting to elaborate on that myth. What society/culture/people thought that? When? Why? When I read your article, I wasn't expecting to see anything about a myth like this so when I did, I was really hoping to find out more about it.

Overall great job, though! LaurenDrzycimski (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will fix the larval appearance right now.Jcsaucier (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
To start off I really like your article. It sounds really good and looks great. I just have a couple of suggestions for you. If you could find a picture to add to your page that would be awesome. Pictures really aid in learning especially with insects. Also, if you could go into more depth about the life cycle of this fly that would be good. For example, including information about how long it takes to get from one stage to the next and so on. Other than that, I really like the cultural importance section. Very interesting. Great work! KellyA09 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Kelly. Since there has been so little research done on this particular species, it is hard to find specific details on the life cycle but I will definitely work on it.Jcsaucier (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Lam09 covered the bulk of the grammatical errors present in the article, but overall I find it to be very interesting. I can tell that your group put a lot of work into gathering research. I have a few formatting suggestions as well as a couple of comments regarding content. Looking over the page as a whole, I notice several inconsistencies with spacing between headings. In some places there is an extra line between headings; for instance, between the sections "Distribution and Habitat" and "Life cycle," there appears to be only one line, while between the sections "Life cycle" and "Importance," there are two (or three?) lines. There are also inconsistencies in capitalization (as mentioned by Lam09); the first word (only) of each section should be capitalized; all following words (except for proper nouns) should be lower-cased. In terms of content, I was rather disappointed in the "Cultural Importance" section. I found the sentence there to be extremely interesting, but I feel that it should be expanded upon in terms of which culture has that particular fable and how it originated, etc. The article would be much improved if there were a photograph included. Have you tried contacting the Insect Library (part of the Entomology Department of Texas A&M)? They have thousands of specimens and will let you photograph any that you would like; I'm sure that you'd be able to find a L. coeruleiviridis specimen. All in all, good article - I think it just needs a little work to make it flow better. But great job with the research! Ecbraley (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the spacing error.Jcsaucier (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a little bit more to the cultural importance section. Seeing as how the comment was made seemingly in passing with not a lot of added information, there was not a lot I could provide. Hopefully my change has made it a bit easier to understand how this may have come about as well as satisfied at least some of that need for expansion. I cannot tell where it originated, or by whom, because that information is not known. Thank you for the suggestions, though! Very helpful :) Kcatron (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading this article I can tell there was quite a bit of research done. It is informative and touches on just about everything you might want to know about this fly. I do think there are a few things that can be done to make it that much better. I think you should link a few more words in the Adult Appearance and Life cycle sections so people that don't know alot about entomology can have a quick way to get definitions. A few words I saw that can be linked are "calypter", "spiracle", "thorax", and "necrophagous" which is misspelled in the article. I also think the appearance of this fly would be better explained if there were a picture. Other than these minor suggestions this is a great article! --Kali615 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. I will touch it up right now.Jcsaucier (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article! You obviously performed very thorough research on this species and it shows throughout the article. The only suggestions I have are to lowercase 'importance' on the "Medical importance" heading, include the Celsius equivalent of your degrees, and maybe add a picture if you can find one. Overall it is an incredibly informative article. TXAG09 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call TXAG09, it is fixed.Jcsaucier (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice article, your group has obviously put significant effort into research. My only suggestion would be to link to Lucilia sericata in the medical importance section, as it comes prior to your link in the forensic importance section. Have a good day. Ento-Ag (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will link it now.Jcsaucier (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Job on the article! It was very clear and informative. There were a couple of fragments and spelling errors but I fixed them for you. You did a good job on linking the page to other articles throughout the page. However, I would remove the red links because they link to non-existing pages. Also, I think that you need atleast one picture of the fly in your page. A picture really helps explain why this fly is called the green bottle fly. Try finding your fly at the Insect Library on campus. Other than that, the article looks great! Good job on the research section. ShikhaY (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)