Talk:Lucilia mexicana

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on early 2009. Further details are available here.

Untitled[edit]

I made some minor adjustments by inserting more links. Some people may not know about some of the technical terms and this gives them a chance to explore a little more. Robertsonza7 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Robertsonza7. That is very helpful. Simonthelion (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits[edit]

To fix your category section. Type in this without any spaces between characters and symbols:

           [ [ Category : Flies ] ]
           [ [ Category : Calliphoridae ] ]

In your Description section, there should be a non-breaking space after a measurement, 9-18 mm, and an en-dash between numbers. The same goes for the the Egg Incubation section. Consult the links to see exactly how you should do this.

"Egg Incubation", "Forensic Importance", and "Current Research" section header-- only the first word of section headers should be capitalized (unless there's a name involved).

--Hieu87 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Hieu87[reply]

Thanks. I corrected those things. Let me know of anything else. Simonthelion (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Congradulations on a page well written! There area few areas that I see that could use some work. The introduction doesn't flow very well, you might want to re-word this. The life cycle could also have been made into a single paragraph instead of two. Other than these two minor details everything else looks great!Hellohello2011 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)hellohello11[reply]

This page is very informative and the picture under the discription heading is very helpful. The only edit I see that needs to be made is that metacephalon links to a nonexisting topic. Other than that all of your links where helpful. Slaytwebeling (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the Description section was very well done (the picture of the postocular bristles is very helpful), although some of the more technical vocabulary could be explained (if you can't link to an article: peritreme, suprasquamal ridge, etc). The introduction would benefit from being expanded--try to include here an overview of the rest of the article. Right now it seems a bit brief. Adding some facts like threshold temperature and larval measurements into the Life cycle section would be good if that information can be found. There are also a few spelling errors that could be caught by spell check. That's really all! Nice article, guys! Aggie2011nerd (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hellohello2011, Slaytwebeling, and Aggie2011nerd. Your suggestions were very helpful. We will definitely take a look at the introduction to see if we can make it better. I also corrected the spelling errors I saw after they were pointed out so let me know if you see any others. Thanks again! Simonthelion (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your page is very well written. The only thing I would suggest is adding some information on the adult fly into the Life cycle category. Something like fertility, expected life span, even coloring and preferred food choices. The reason for this is that a lot of people click on the heading link and never read any other section. Other than that good job. Catielynn.russell (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, but unfortunately not much information is out there on the pupal and adult life stages of this species. We thought a description of the adult would be better off in the overall description of the species.Simonthelion (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, well written article! Especially the description! "There remain disputes as to whether L. mexicana is also synonymous with L. coeruleiviridis, in which case the name mexicana holds priority. [3]" might sound better as: Disputes remain as to whether...Also consider linking the following words: suprasquamal, vestiture, metacephalon, vittal, and peritreme. The vast majority of people may not know the meaning. Other then some of the other suggestions listed above I don't see any other changes needed. Good job! Cpetey08 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping us with the wording. We have changed it and now it sounds a lot better. We tried to link to those more technical words, but articles do not exist for them. Thanks for the suggestion though! Simonthelion (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very well-written and informative article. The description is excellent. I am particularly impressed with the photo that was taken of the postoccular bristles. Perhaps the "Green Bottle Blow Fly" in the first sentence should be changed to "Green Bottle Blowfly". Wonderful article overall. Julianna1587 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliments and suggestion. We decided not to change the spelling of the word "blow fly" to "blowfly" because it is accepted and spelled either way. Lam09 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice article. In the description section there is mention of terms such as "suprasquamal" and "metacephalon", and I did not know what they meant or what they were. Maybe you could define or briefly explain these two terms. The Range and Habitat section says that "In Texas, the range for L. mexicana is similar to L. eximia." I would just like to point out that everybody might not know L. eximia's range, so it might be beneficial to go ahead and describe it. Maryam618 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed suggestions. We defined "suprasquamal" and "metacephalon" for clarification. As for the sentence regarding L. eximia, the resource we obtained this information from did not go into detail about the specific range in Texas. So unfortunately, we could not elaborate on that topic. Lam09 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on your article! Here are a few suggestions though. Under Taxonomy, instead fo saying "species of fly from the famil of Caliphoridae," "member of the family Caliphoridae" would sound better. Then, under Egg incubation, organization can be improved by placing the last sentence after the first. Also, instead of "freshly killed animal carcasses" under Forensic importance, "fresh carrion" would be more accurate. G16member (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making some good suggestions. We changed the sentence in the taxonomy section and rearranged the sentences in the egg incubation section. From our research, we decided that "freshly killed animal carcasses" would be a more accurate description than "fresh carrion" so we decided to not make that suggested change. Thanks again for your input. Lam09 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article for the information that was available to you! In the introduction, however, I would introduce your forensic importance and current research paragraphs to let the reader know what your going to be discussing in the rest of your article. Otherwise, VERY GOOD! Robertsonza7 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliment. Hopefully our improved introduction is better. Simonthelion (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions are jargon heavy, you might want to include some pictures to reinforce what youre describing. A piture of "post-ocular" bristles will help show what your talking about. Also I only counted 7 body paragraphs and we need to have at least 10 paragraphs. Also you might want to add a conclusion since it's required in the rubric. Forgive me if there is one, I thought I didn't see one.Bbllr3431 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions, but we already have a picture of the post-occular birstles, and we contacted our professor who said a conclusion is not required. Simonthelion (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work; however, I would like to have read more on why L. mexicana is suspected to have been the problem with the drying fruit as opposed to L. coeruleiviridis. I think this should have been backed up by the reasoning or an example. Other than that looks good. --Ashaggie09 (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. The resource we obtained the information from regarding the drying fruit did not thoroughly explain a reason. This information was simply stated without much further detail, so we could not expand on that subject. Lam09 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the article. It was very informative, especially on the description of the species, which by the way had a great use of the vocabs we learned in class. Also, I liked the information you added about the species being found in stored products because I think it adds to the effect of getting people more aware of it; and therefore maybe more research will be done over it. Pbianca88 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.55.246 (talk) [reply]

We really appreciate your comments. Thank you for taking the time to read and review our article. Lam09 (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems very well-written and concise. The description is very detailed, and the picture aid is very helpful. The main suggestion that I can make is to be consistent with measurement units (use either all standard or all metric units or include both if necessary. Great article!Jamesciii2009 (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. We will definitely take that into consideration. Lam09 (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life Cycle Heading[edit]

In your "Life Cycle" heading only the first word needs to be capitalized, it should be: Life cycle.Blhockey19 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I corrected the heading accordingly. Lam09 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the section dealing with the egg and larval stages, you should link the information to a reference so others can verify the information.Bandeh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bandeh, for pointing that out. We have added references to those sections. Simonthelion (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life Cycle[edit]

In the section about egg development you discuss how different temperatures cause the eggs to develop and hatch more quickly. For the benefit of those that are curious as to why this changes, you could discuss the concept of degree days and how the average temperature being higher than the threshold temperature makes a difference in developmental speed. Also, something should be written about both the pupal stage and the adult stage of the species. Other than that the article is well written and easy to read! Jklein08 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jklein08. We added a link to degree days in the life cycle section so that curious readers could check it out. Simonthelion ([[User talk:Simonthelion|talk]]) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy Section...[edit]

I enjoyed the article ! My only random question is, did you find anything on the origin of the scientific name at all ? Why is it mexicana ? I did not see anything in the article about where the epithet was derived from. Nanayaagh (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Unfortunately, we were not able to find any research that specifically discussed the origin of the name mexicana, otherwise we would have included such information. Lam09 (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucilia mexicana. 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/20110720061957/http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07312008-31295017082552/unrestricted/31295017082552.pdf to http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07312008-31295017082552/unrestricted/31295017082552.pdf

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)[reply]