Talk:Lucilia silvarum

Discussion
The article looks great thus far but I noticed the research and conclusion section were missing as per the assignment rubric. I'm just putting the observation out there so there won't be points missing when grading time comes. Hope this helps! --Jdarnell (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see from their contribs that your professor, User:ABrundage, hasn't edited in some time. Please ask them to check their talk page regarding my comments on conclusion sections. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was sure we weren't required to have a conclusion, but i'll look into that again. Thanks. Mliu715 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.172.163 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed some minor errors in the article such as italicizing the genus and species of your fly in a few different places. Also, I edited small grammatical things so that past and present tenses matched up and numbers were spelled out if necessary. LaurenDrzycimski (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input and taking your time to edit our page. Cassiegz (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Cassiegz (User talk:Cassiegz|talk]])

Entoproject30 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I specifically liked the Ecology section and found it very interesting. The introduction could be changed to be a little bit more clear. This sentence in particular, "The main cause for concern for this particular species of fly is in terms of myiasis, specifically concerning the females of this species," could be reworded to flow better. Suggestion: Myiasis is the main cause of concern for L. silvarum, specifically in the female species. Otherwise I really like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entoproject30 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions we appreciate your help, the sentece has been reworded. Cassiegz (talk)

This article looks good. It is very well researched and seems to really communicate all the aspects of this species. I think that the main place where there needs to be some improvement is in the distribution section. I think ya'll should add certain areas in which this fly was found instead of making it so broad. Say whether they were found in urban or rural areas, near water or the desert. I do not know if Adrienne would classify this as a paragraph. Also when I counted your paragraphs, I only found 9. Maybe ya'll could make the paragraphs more distinct. Overall, I think this article is very good and I really like the section about the Clinical Importance. Ac22 (talk)
 * You have a very good point...thank you for your suggestions. There was not much specific infomation out there about L. silvarum distribution but we will keep looking. Thank you. Cassiegz (talk)

I really enjoyed reading your article. I felt as though it was very informative and had great flow. The one thing I saw that was somewhat confusing is the paragraphs about your fly causing myiasis on amphibians. I was wondering if the fly caused primary myiasis on amphibians but only secondary myiasis on humans. I was also thinking maybe you could also include how those particular species of frog have been able to avoid death with the myiasis. The overall article looks great and I learned a lot! What a fascinating fly!Dentalgirl (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you!L. silvarum causes secondary myiasis on amphibians. Thanks for your input Cassiegz (talk)

This article gave a lot of information, and, not to sound rude or mean, seems to me to be written somewhat sloppily. The second part of the abstract could be better suited written as "This species of fly is known for its ability to cause myiasis, especially the females of the species. This a cause of concern in many species of animals, including humans.  This species is known to found around rotting bodies and in areas of high filth concentration because it is attracted to the smell." This version cleans up the language used, and gives the same information. The same can be said for the first sentence in the description area, a sentence should not start of "Due to", this is the same as saying "Because of". It would be better suited to say "This fly is a member of the order Diptera, so it only uses one pair of its wings for mobility." In Distribution, it would be better to say "This fly is considered to be a warm-weather fly, since it is typically found in areas with temperatures between..." The only other concern I see is the gap between the title bar for life cycle and when the actual paragraph starts. After a few changes in the language, this could be one of the better articles in the class. Thanks for listening! (--Rockymtv25 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Thank you for taking the time to read our article. We appreciate your help. We will be sure to clean up any grammatical errors. Cassiegz (talk)

Good job on the article. The details given were all clearly stated and interesting. A few things I noticed that would benefit your webpage would be in the Life cycle section to remove the large gap/space in between the title and the text. This, obviously, is not critical but will help make the page look like it is not missing a chunk of research. Also, in the Life cycle section the last sentence could be reworded. The use of the phrase "become an actual pupa" makes it sound like the pupa was fake to begin with. Perhaps, just stating "become a pupa" would be more clear. In the ecology section you could link the word parasitic to the parasite wikipedia page. I noticed that it was linked further down in your material but having the first appearance of the word linked would make more sense. Lastly, in the medical section when you talk about maggot therapy I believe it would benefit you to briefly explain that maggot therapy cleans out dead tissue. This will give a better understanding of exactly how these maggots are treating the wounds. Other than these few minor details your page looks great! The pictures bring alot to the appearance of the page! Amanda.turchi (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. We will use them. LMS-ento431 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)LMS-ento431

I think you have great pictures in this article, however, I do believe that the article could have been wriiten better. It contains alot of information that could have been put together better. The Distribution and Description sections could be a little longer to include more acurate information. Also, the intoduction should be more of a summary of the whole article and not just more random information. I do like the ecology, forensic importance, and clinical importance sections of this article. I think they have a lot to offer. I really like the pictures, and I think that overall the article is pretty good. Hope this helps!Klovel (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. LMS-ento431 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)LMS-ento431

This article is presented really well, and I think the pictures really improve the overall article. However, I've noticed some awkward spacing between the heading and paragraph in the Life Cycle section that could easily be corrected. I also have a slight problem with the phrase "The main cause for concern for this particular species of fly is in terms of myiasis". I think that could be worded differently to say "The main cause of concern for this particular species of fly is its ability to cause myiasis" or some other more sophisticated sentence structure. Overall though, seems good and informative! APad77 (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, i'll look into the spacing and modify the sentence structure. Appreciate the picture remarks165.91.172.163 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Mliu715

Taxobox
[ [ Jean-Baptiste Robineau-Desvoidy | Desvoidy ] ]
 * You can link to Desvoidy in your taxbox. To do this, type the code below omitting any spaces between characters & symbols.  It really should be Robineau-Desvoidy b/c it's a two letter last name, but it's up to you really.

i.e) bufolucilia silvarum should be Bufolucilia silvarum etc.. --Hieu87 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Hieu87
 * In the synonym section, you didn't capitalize the genus names of the species.

Peer Review
Overall, the article is very informative and is formatted well. There are a few things I noticed that could be changed or improved. In the first paragraph of the article, “European countries and Western Countries” could be combined to “European and Western countries.” There are several sentences that are wordy and confusing and could use some clarification. For example, the sentences in the second paragraph of the article could be rearranged. The phrase “In addition to being a species prevalent in myiasis” is not necessary and can be taken out because it is redundant. Also, try not to use the same word like “prevalent” twice in the same sentence. It looks and sounds better to use a synonym instead of repeating the same word. In the last sentence of the second paragraph the phrase “as well as areas of high filth concentration” could be elaborated on in another sentence to make the statement clear as to what exactly that means. The section title of “Forensic Importance” should be “Forensic importance” because only the first word in the title should be capitalized. In the synonyms section, the first letter of the genus name should be capitalized for all four of the synonyms listed. In the description section, watch the wordiness of the sentences like, “Due to the fact that” and “In being a member of.” Also, the description section could be improved by discussing the color of the gena and thoracic spiracle, and by adding a link to the word “arista.”  Also, molting should be discussed since it is mentioned in the last section of the article. In the distribution section, the “°F” needs a font change to match the font of the article. The first two sentences in the first paragraph of the life cycle section would work better in the ecology section. In the ecology section, myiasis in anurans is discussed, so it would make sense to present the information in that section. The specifics about the life cycle during myiasis in anurans can still be discussed in the life cycle section, but it would look and flow better to have it presented as the second paragraph and not the first. Also, there is a period missing in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the life cycle section and the word “faeces” should be changed to “feces.” In the ecology section, the sentence that is in parentheses, “(These hosts are specific to Canada)” could be included in the last sentence of the paragraph. In the clinical importance section, “Rana sylvatica” should be italicized, but otherwise it is a very strong section. The forensic importance section is also written well and is a nice ending paragraph. Also, I really like all of the pictures used because they enhance the flow and explanation of topics discussed in the article. Lam09 (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments they were very effective and helped us greatly. I changed close to everything that you commented on with a few minor observations of our own. Nav52 (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

peer review
Your article looks neat and fancy with a lot of pictures. Good job! However, The first sentence under "Life Cycle" is a run-on. You should have a period after "fly" and then begin a new sentence with "upon". Also, we were given some advice on our page stating that each para title should only have the first word capitalized, not both. Good luck! Aimaggie (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the sentence starting with the main cause for concern is a little awkward sounding and might sound better if re written..maybe something along the lines of…the main concern for this species is due to the females who are the main problem with causing myiasis. In addition to causing myiasis this fly is also been known to be prevalent around rotting bodies and areas of high filth as they are attracted to the smell. I just think it would flow more if it was re written Also you might want to add something about the current/future research that is going to be or is going on with the species so people are aware —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amccolloch (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks amccolloch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.232.203 (talk • contribs) 17:06, April 14, 2009

We appreciate your analysis amccolloch, we already added the research portion and modified the sentences. have a good day Mliu715-ento431 (talk)

Very interesting article. I really liked the picture of the larvae inside of the frog (very detailed)! A few things i noticed is that you may want to actually link this page to the list of groups on our project page. Im not sure if you already have a link to that page, but yalls fly is one of the few that are missing a link. Also when talking about clinical importance you may want to discuss any diseases they could transfer if they do since they are so parasitic to frogs. Lastly I would have to say yall may want to make a research section, since that will help further the understanding of the fly itself and what its importance is towards forensic entomology. Kctaylor (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC) We didn't include what it transmits because it does not transmit any disease. Thanks for your suggestions. LMS-ento431 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)LMS-ento431

Your article is very informative and flows nicely! One thing that could be changed is rewording a sentence under Forensic Importance. "It is this important fact that causes this fly to be of great importance to forensic scientists..." somehow in the beginning of that sentence rewording it. I like all of the pictures you have added in this article as well.Ashtyndenise (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you. That has been taken care of.LMS-ento431 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)LMS-ento431

Nicely done, I especially like all of the pictures, they always help to make the read easier on the eyes. I would just change a few things. In the first paragraph you have written "European countries and Western countries" I think it flows better as "European and Western Countries" just sounds a little wordy with countries twice. If not, I would choose to hyperlink both of them. I would also take a look at your headings, they would look better if the words all started off with a capital letter or lowercase letter on the second word. For example you have Life cycle then directly below Current Clinical Importance, I believe the second should be Current clinical importance to match the first. One last thing stood out to me, you have written Species' life cycle, I'm not one-hundred percent but since the species own their life cycle shouldn't it be Species life cycle?Otherwise, good job.--Ashaggie09 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're recommendations for editing are definitely accurate. we will revise some of necesssary changes you suggested. I'm glad you like the pictures, thanks for the advice. .--Mliu715 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC).