Talk:Sarcophaga barbata

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): Asivamohan. Peer reviewers: Alicelixuan, ArndtH, Chickfilkay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Comments
Hi. Nice job starting a fairly comprehensive introduction to the species. I edited writing in terms of grammar and unclear language. In the original description section, I replaced ambiguous and/or incorrect interpretations of the primary sources and added information. I then changed the heading to morphology, as it is mostly morphological description, as opposed to the species’ general difference from its close relatives, regarding both morphological and behavioral aspects. I also added citing at the end of the sentences that contain the information from the corresponding sources and moved the internal links to the first time the term is mentioned. A lot of minor edits. If you decide to keep working on this article in the future, I would suggest research more into the distinctive features of the species compared to its close relatives, its ecological importance, its enemies (parasites and predators), and relation to humans. Overall a great starting point! Alicelixuan (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I made small edits for grammar and spelling, as well as consistency of plural/singular nouns. I also eliminated some statements that were too subjective, regarding visibility of scales. There were also a few claims about stripes, pupa length, and dominance as a necrophagous fly that I edited for clarity and adherence to the primary literature. I might suggest a section on Diet if you continue working on the article. While addressed briefly in the Importance to Humans section, the section mainly focuses on the larval deposits and forensic significance. Overall, I think this was a well-written article. ArndtH (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. Lots of good information and well written in general. I just added some pertinent information to the lead section because before it was pretty scarce and tried to go through and make things more clear. Added information about the fly's relevance in research to the lead section. I may suggest adding to the research section in order to more flesh out the importance of the fly in the research--perhaps I might read the paper's introduction to see if the fly has properties that the article is missing which may explain why this fly was used instead of D. melanogaster for example.Chickfilkay (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)