Talk:Lucilia illustris

Untitled

This article was great.. I believe to enhance the reader it would have been great to add case studies to show readers like myself the actuality...(Lice2008 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

You guys were pretty detailed in your article, specifically the larvae. Good job. I think a sharper image, or two, would really top it off.--165.91.80.115 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More pictures would most definitely brighten up and make this page more appealing. A page full of text is not very appealing to the reader. Lauren Kalns (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "more pictures" comment. Also, can these flies be used to determine Post Mortem Interval estimations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCJones04 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

May consider moving the medical importance to after the forensic importance. I think that would make more sense. Would also be interesting to include some more actual cases and examples where blow flies were used forensically. -Lauren

This article is very good but your subheadings could use some improvement. Normally subheadings show up in the table of contents so its easier to navigate the page. I can see from the edit page that you used semi-colons but you should surround the subheading word with 3 equal signs on each side.--Angelina5288 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm curious about is the current research section you have at the bottom of the page. Is there any way you can go into more depth in that? Just so it's longer than a couple sentences. I think it would be interesting to learn a little more about that. Laylou11 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input. This article was a group effort, so I have forwarded your comment on to the member who was responsible for that area. We will try to get some more added to that section as soon as possible.--Annemarye (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the article. You may want to consider expanding the introduction so that it gives a general introduction to all aspects of the article. The lead paragraph should provide a concise overview of the article and also provide some context for the article. Motoliyat (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You should adjust the subheading under medical importance to say only vector. When associated with medicine, vector means a transmitter or disease, so your subheading is redundant. Colstewart71639 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I see were you are coming from with the subtitle being redundant but I feel this is may be helpful for some readers unfamiliar with entomological vectors to help clarify what the term means.Hold323 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this article to be very interesting, especially the fact about L. illustris infecting pheasants with C. botulinum. The only problem i found with this article is that some of your references are listed more than once. It is really easy to fix this. If you want to take a look at the formatting of our page's references, Cochliomyia, you would be able to see what I am talking about. Phodges09 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall, you covered the topic very well. I liked the behavior section because it covered something even most science majors don’t know about the insect. However, I think you need to link some of the more scientific terms to other pages. You have to keep in mind that your audience ranges from experts to elementary school kids. Try to keep things simple and link things that can’t be simplified. Also, I myself remember information better when I have photos to link it to. Is there any way you can get some photos of the larva, eggs and pupae of this fly? Other than that, I feel that this is a great article. --Sadiezapalac (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should have put more pictures because they help het your point across about whatever your talking about in your case what exactly the maggot masses look like and what the flies do to the body. I like the bit at the end about the maggots for therapy on wounds that won't heal themselves it is crazy what we can use in medicine today. Jdpage (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work

This article is very nicely done. Great work! – ClockworkSoul 02:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikified

Hey guys! I think this article is put together very well and is appealing to the common reader. I few suggestions: one, wikify "blow flies" under your introduction, also I think that you should expand your taxonomy section. Maybe you could write a little more about the discovery and take a look at our page phormia regina to see how we did it. I know it's not the best, but it provides a little bit more information. Other than that, great work! Kt babe8 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)kt_babe8

Wikispecies

Hey guys! I just wanted to let you all know about the Wikispecies project [[1]]. Your article fits in with their project, so look into it. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting info. to add

Hey, I was reading your article and realized that I have a neat fact on your fly species from doing research on factors affecting decomposition in our article Forensic Entomological Decomposition. This is the sentence we have in our article "Access to the body can limit which insects can get to the body in order to feed and lay eggs. In the United States, corpses found in brightly lit areas are generally inhabited by Lucilia illustris."If you would like to add this in your article, which I think would be beneficial then here is the source:

Campobasso, Carlo P., Giancarlo D. Vella, and Francesco Introna. "Factors Affecting Decomposition and Diptera Colonization." Forensic Science International 120 (2001): 18-27. Science Direct. Texas A&M University, College Station. 13 Mar. 2008 --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Distribution

I think this article is well written, the only thing I would suggest is to input a paragraph about Lucilia illustris' distribution. This would help a Forensic Entomologist for example if a body was found with Lucilia illustris pupae or larvae on it in a region that the adults are not found; which would tell you that the person was killed somewhere else and dumped there later. Austinh37 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour?

I was confused on the reasoning behind using the different spelling for "behavior" for this section. I know that there are spelling variations for this word, but it seems that the way you are using this word within the context of your section, the term should be spelled like "behavior," not "behaviour." Let me know your logic behind that spelling choice so that I can have a better understanding of why you chose it spell it that way. Other than that, interesting article. Good job. (Lamanda14 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Introduction

The introduction could have generated more information on this specific species more than it did. I fell that if you elaborated more on why exactly is this species of fly so important for forensic entomologists? I also think that you should go into more depth when talking about taxonomy.Foxracer11373 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the Taxonomy section to your introduction. It is such a small section on its own and the introduction is a bit brief and would benefit with this added material. Additionally I would suggest providing readers with some external links at the bottom of your page so that they can gain additional information on Lucilia illustris from the web. Overall it is good. Alexxmacc (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Forensic Importance

This is a very informative and well written article. Although the larval instar characteristics contain some very esoteric terms that the average reader may be turned off by, this information will prove useful to the expert community. I agree with others' comments about elaborating in certain areas of the article.For instance, in the subheading "Vector of disease causing agents" in the sentence, "Dispersal from the infected carrion by third star larvae..." you should explain that the reason for this dispersal is to find a safe place to pupate. (The word instar is also mispelled here, which is the only technical mistake I found in the article.) My main criticism of this article is that "Forensic importance" doesn't have any information pertaining specifically to this species. This is just a generalized summary of the use of all blowfly species in forensic entomology. I also felt that your "for example" was extraneous and, frankly, not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Here are some suggested questions to answer: What temperature range do they prefer to live in?; What regions in the US accomodate them with this preferred climate? What is the lower threshold for this species? What is the optimal temperature to facilitate larval development/quickest development duration? How much time do they spend in each phase (egg/instar/pupa)? What is the average time from egg to emergence of the adult in this species?Manwiches (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Very well-written article! A few minor adjustments include: In the sentence "The species' sex ratio is generally equal..." the phrase "and amazingly" should be deleted for encyclopedic reasons -- this phrase does not add anything to the statement; in the photo gallery, the genus Lucilia is a non-italicized, dead link -- try using an external source instead; the category "Taxonomy" seems unnecessary for a single sentence -- this statement regarding taxonomy and etymology should be included in the opening introduction. I loved the case study included in the article: this really shows the importance of post-mortem interval determination by insects to the common reader! JRechy (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is well organized, as far as the topics it is broken up into. One suggestion with organization is to break up the behavior section into mating behavior and something else or to just include the larvae section with the behavior section and call it life cycle. Or move the descriptive part of the larvae section in with 'Description' and break that into an 'adult' sub-section and a 'larvae' sub-section. Also this was noted above, but 'Lucilia' is still not italicized in the genus. It is good that there is a current research section because many groups do not have such sections. Well-written and great job!Cenire (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good article that addressed a topic not many people focus on. You had some minor grammatical mistakes, such as "disease causing organisms" (it should be disease-causing). Also, when you discuss maggot debridement therapy, you could put in a link to the "maggot therapy" Wikipedia article. Here's the link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_therapy> Jablan1 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Jablan1

I thought this article was well written and organized; however, I think if you decided to make your case study a separate paragraph (or a subsection) within it's section, it would improve the transition. Also, you could write out the full name of "LD50" for readers who understand this concept but may not initially recognize your shorthand. The only other changes I think might help your article draw more attention include adding another photo (perhaps a case study) or truly trying to highlight some detail which is unique to your species. Good luck!--Amb8786 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good job linking several words in your article to other articles. Really helps with importance and relevance with other topics. Very thorough description! Thanks for explaining the technical words immediately after using them. That really helps with eliminating confusion. If larvae has it's own section, maybe the adult stage should too? Very good idea with the current research section! Also, the forensic importance is a good idea in making it relate to the class. Good list of references. Y'all did a really good job! Kellyorr1 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucilia illustris. 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/20080102070741/http://research.missouri.edu/entomology/casestudies.html to http://research.missouri.edu/entomology/casestudies.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)