Talk:Phormia regina

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): Montana.sievert. Peer reviewers: Mmhua, Steelwull, Rchiou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review
This is a very thorough, well-written, and organized article! The lead section is very detailed and effective at demonstrating why this fly is unique and important. I made several grammatical changes, changed some sentence structures for clarity, and fixed some spelling mistakes. You did a good job choosing which words to link, but I noticed some repetition like linking to calypters 2-3 times, so I removed some links (since links should often only be used for the first occurrence of the word in the article). I also moved two sentences from your Physiology section into the Food Sources section, which seemed more fitting for information on mouth parts and food sources. Good job! --Mmhua (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I think your article was very well-thought out and you managed to add a lot of good sections and information to the existing article. I went over again to add a few more links to words and terms that are not common knowledge, and got rid of some that were linked throughout. The tone is pretty neutral, but I edited out wording like “seems to be” and "is probably" that is more speculative. Perhaps some sections with only one sentence could be expanded on as well. I found a picture through a Creative Commons search, so I added it to the article. It may be good to add more, since it is such a long article too. The details were really interesting! Steelwull (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This article goes into incredible depth in the amount of information provided. The section headings are very clear and organized in a logical manner. I added some additional information to the physiology section regarding the temperature specific activity of adults in order to complement the existing work nicely. Possibly consider adding a little more information regarding the "Distribution" in which states the fly is more prevalent in as opposed to just generally saying it is in both the north and south of the US. Overall well written!Rchiou (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall, this article is very well written and contains a ton of information about the chosen fly. There were not many edits to be made as previous editors touched on all the aspects I also would have suggested to change. However, the one change that I did make was re-ordering the subsection of “Larval Development” to be before the “Adult Development” subsection as I thought this flowed better and made more logical sense. I also made some minor grammatical adjustments throughout the article. Again, really well written! Nikhilaggarwal123 (talk) 06:21, 03 November 2019 (UTC)

Very well written article! This article is already really well done, but one thing you could consider is changing the main image if there is another one available that better shows the fly without the human hand. Rebeccaspell (talk) 23:50, 03 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca, I followed your suggestion and changed the main image. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana.sievert (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments
This entry is written well so I see how it is B-class, but I also feel like more details, references, and relevant diagrams/photos could be included to bolster this entry. For example, there is very little detail on morphology. There is also a lack of an “Enemies” section, which would be important for understanding how this species interacts with certain parasites, diseases, or other insects. It’d also be interesting to see a section on male/male interactions to understand how males compete for females, which would flow well with the info on sexual maturity that is already included in this entry. A “Food Resources” section could be added to go more into detail on the type of dung that these flies often eat, as well as what else is a part of their diet. I think Mid-importance is appropriate because these flies are vital for forensic investigations since blow flies colonize corpses. Several comments mention how it’s well-written but needs more details in the “Medical Importance” section. I agree because there are only three sentences and one reference in this section. It’d be really interesting to read more specific examples on how these flies can be used for medical purposes! Mmhua (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Aye, I like this article. I can tell that you went to class because I could have swore I head our professor's voice when I was reading the Forensic Importance section. If I were to change something I would say add some picture; they help distinguish the species. Also, I would have like to seen how or what the process is of finding the PMI as in degree days or something that opens the door up more in that area. But overall, the article was good. MrBryant44 (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I love this topic! It will be very useful for forensic research. I realy like that you identified the difference between Sarcophagidae and Caliphoridae. You seemed to cover the basics in the begining of the article and then get a little specifice at the end with the Forensic Importance and Medical paragraphs. If I was doing a paper or looking for study material, I would be able to get alot of my information off of this site alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmfc (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the article yall, but I think you guys could "wiki" it even more by adding some pictures. Be sure that it doesnt violate any copyright rules and follows the wiki guidelines, or else it will be deleted. -Azayed34 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I think this article is great. I would check a bit of grammar and maybe try to split up the section about the life cycles so it can flow better. I also think that it would be great for you to add some pictures in. I think it could really enhance your article. Otherwise the article is excellent.Megalatta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalatta (talk • contribs) 05:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall, this article is organized very well and has plenty of references to back up the facts. The only negative thing about your article is that there aren't any pictures. Even just a single picture above the scientific classification box would be fine. --Angelina5288 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is interesting, and I just want to add a couple of minor suggestions: -Under Medicinal importance, you have 'Veterinarians could add ...' - perhaps the 'could' should be changed to sound more scholarly - something along the lines of '... is a new possibility for veterinarians.' -Maybe you should rename the heading 'discovery' since the subject matter below is more further research than the actual discovery of Phormia regina. Good luck! --Gdespejo (talk)

I really think that this article is well laid out with the table on the right and the order of topics. I know how difficult wikipedia can be so I can really tell it took awhile to get the fromat right. The only thing I would add would be a picture of Phormia larvae and adult flies, and more information on how they determine degree days for this species to help with PMI. cinco0513 —Preceding comment was added at 15:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like the layout of the article. I also liked that there was plenty of further reading materials mentioned. After reading the article, I came up with a few suggestions. First, I think that diptera should be capitalized throughout the article. The word 'attributed' in the first sentence of the second introductory paragraph does not quite make sense. The flow of many of the sentences is a bit choppy and hard to follow at times. Under the 'Taxonomy' section, the wording of the last sentence is very confusing. Perhaps the word 'be' could be put in before the word 'identified' and 'a' could be added before the word 'combination'. I think that lifecycle needs to be changed to two words thoroughout the article. Also, the third sentence under the 'Forensic importance' section is confusing especially the part about "second factors". Some editing should be done to clarify the meaning of the sentence. Overall, the article was very informative and offered a lot of in-depth details. I especially liked the fact that the importance of this species to the forensic and medical field was highlighted. Hope the suggestions are helpful. Good luck! --Kmcneese (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is great in the way that it uses experiments to provide evidential support for the statements made and I found the discussion of its application to forensic investigations to be both interesting and detailed! Well written, but also consider including more information regarding intercommunication between the species. Rchiou (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Rchiou

Medical Importance
Hey, great article but one thing that I feel needs to be mentioned about phormia regina is that they are a HUGE vector for river blindness. That is probly their biggest involvment in medicine and it should not be too hard to find sources on it especially if you try looking it up on JSTOR through the university online database. This disease is really a big deal in alot of places so I hope yall look into it. Hold323 (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I really liked the article and found it very imformative, however I didn't see any citations in the paragraph on the medical importance. That is the only issue that really pops out to me, so great job guys!Ngjon87 (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If I ever have to do a report about Phormia Regina, I'll definitely come here for my information. Although I am not an entomology guru, I really appreciated how your topic was related to medicinal use. This section is very descriptive and detailed. I am going to assume that there was an abundant amount of research on this topic which aided to your entire article. I did not observe any citation used in this section. I also was wondering if Phormia regina was the only species of the Calliphoridae family used in maggot therapy. I would just list a few more species, and if at all possible, link them to other articles. Otherwise, great job on citations, research, and everything else in between!(Jaycewright (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Pictures
Hey guys! This is a great article. Have you thought about coming out to the lab to take pictures? We have P. regina in culture now, so you would be able to get pictures of the full life cycle. Let me or Micah know. ABrundage, Texas A&amp;M University (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking/Characteristics
I thought your article was very well written and researched. I think it would help if you maybe had a section or subheading for the physical characteristics of the fly separate from the introduction. It would make it more organized. I noticed you had a physiology section which is great, but a section for characteristics such as color would be more organized. I also think you should link to the maggot therapy page in the subheading medical importance. I went ahead and took the liberty of linking for you. Garza j e (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)garza_j_e (talk)

Wikispecies
Hey guys! I just wanted to let you all know about the Wikispecies project []. Your article fits in with their project, so look into it. ABrundage, Texas A&amp;M University (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction and taxonomy sections have word for word some of the same information. It's good information, but only needs to be there once. We're linking our page to yours! Alli5414 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a great informative article! There are lot of cool facts that have been recognized and it's put together very well. I also think that one way to even improve it more would be to add some pictures. As a reader who may very well be interested in this species know what they look like, but for all those non-entomology fanatics out there have no idea. Just something to think about. Jbratz (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The article provides a lot of great information; however I noticed that you do not have a paragraph for identification. Although you do talk about the adult characteristics in the introduction, I think it would be great if y'all put a solo Identification paragraph that also includes Phormia regina's larval characteristics. Austinh37 (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
Howdy! This is generally a well organized artcle. One suggestion is to rename the section taxonomy to history and then elaborate more on it. Also, perhaps having a section at the end called current research (if there is any current research or future research being done) as a concluding paragraph. Also, you could try wkikifying a few more words, seems a little sparse as far as links to other pages go. Good job!Cenire (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome article it seems to stand out as one of the best ones of the class. If i were to add anything it would be how these flies find there food source.Stogie77 (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions to Phormia regia Page
As part of a class project to edit and improve Wikipedia pages on Diptera flies in accordance with the Diperta Wiki Project. I added sections including: description, distribution, habitat, food sources, mating, parental care, genetics, social behavior, and interactions with humans. I referenced information from 13 scientific sources although several were already referenced by different sections in the page that were added before my additions. Montana.sievert (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)