Talk:Calliphora vicina

The only thing that I can see that needs improvement is that the biology section needs more internal links. Some links you could do are meron, coxa, and notopleuron. Basically you should link terms that an "Average Joe" wouldn't understand. --Angelina5288 (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. However, only coxa has a link on Wikipedia, so only it can be internally linked. Colstewart71639 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• The section about distribution could be expanded more or just simply incorporated into another section. Also, it would be helpful to give measurements in both millimeters and inches. Great job on the article. Motoliyat (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Distribution

Hey guys, I read the article and I think you did a great job. It is not that long, yet it gives readers just enough information to get a good glimpse at the characteristics of the blowfly. I do think that you could expand on the distribution sections. It is just one sentence and if you don't expand, its better to put it in the introduction or life cycle section. Otherwise, everything is great! Kt babe8 (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)kt_babe8

This article looks great, one thing that might improve it is adding distribution information from outside the US and also be a little more specific as to what parts of the U.S this species is more prevalent. Hold323 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

peer review

In response to Colstewart71639, you can still link to articles that don't currently exist in case someone who visits your page would like to actually create the article. The links will appear red instead of blue. Some other suggestions:

• You can also link to blow-fly, which is an ENTO 431 page.
• Please remember the in-class discussion we had about connecting insect evidence to insect colonization rather than post mortem interval.
• You may want to alter your article so that PMI isn't mentioned before the PMI section.

There's not much else to bring to your attention! good job Weilingz (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This a good looking article. Maybe under the distribution can yall add some numbers for the species found in the US? Mikearq (talk) 5:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your article is very short and to the point and very easy to read. I have two suggestions. The first is under Behavior 5 lines down, maybe replace found with discovered. Also if it would be more visual if you could provide a picture of the anatomy. Thanks. --Jordanmurphy (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting article especially the fact that these flies are prevalent in cooler temperatures, since most people associate flies with hot weather. My only critique is that the sentence "Case studies have shown that it is not first in arrival, but rather appears one to two days before Phaenicia sericata." is a little confusing, you might want to consider revising the wording of it. Phodges09 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a great article. It covers many of the important facets of the insect and its characteristics without going into gross detail that would be unecessary for the average wikipedia user. The only real critique that I have is that it seems to be written on a much higher level that your audience will most likely be from the wikipedia community. An explanatory diagram of the locations of the pleuron, spiracles, etc. would be extremely helpful in your identification section. I also think (especially for words that should have been linked but currently don't have pages on this site) that you might consider taking a minute or two to add a sentence explaining what it is or why it's important. The word that definitely sticks out to me for this improvement is cheotaxy. Obviously everyone in our class is aware of what this is and how it's used, but most aren't and I think it would add more substance to your article.

I really enjoyed the photos that you found and the formatting of the box for all of the scientific classification information. This information is very helpful and keeps me interested. If you could, it'd be great to get a close-up picture of the metallic outer covering or the spiracle (there might have been one in the class notes -- but I'm not sure). Otherwise, the article looks awesome! Great job. Good luck finishing up the article and replying to all of your comments. Kayla foster (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I really liked the article. The only suggestion that I can offer is in the part on the life cycle. You might want to say that the numbers that you obtained for the different stages are at a constant temperature and you might want to list that temperature. And at the beginning of that section it talked about the threshold temperature. You might want to change that to upper threshold temperature, but this is not as big a issue.Ngjon87 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, great article. The only changes I would make is i'm not sure if the ammount of information on this particular fly is not very common or what, but the overall feel of the article being a scientific article it should be a little more in-depth. For example you could add a section on Control, and indicate the best methods of cultural, biological and chemical controls to overcome pest status of the pest if present in our society. But a great overall article here! Lebl37 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Is there any way to use the photos on your page from Wikipedia commons? They are really good and high quality. If not, I would consider taking some more pictures in the lab that show more details. We're linking our page to yours! Alli5414 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just look at commons:Calliphora_vicina, find the pic you like and add it using an image tag as you would a pic on wikipedia. If you like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Calliphora_vicina_portrait.jpg, just add [[Image:Calliphora_vicina_portrait.jpg|thumb]] and you would get...

--220.255.53.160 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are beautiful pictures! Thanks for the link. Wudntulyk2no (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is good, but is there any way ya’ll can cover more about the insect. I’ve read other insect articles and they go into the history, influences on humans, etc. This article has to be helpful to entomologists that have done this all there lives, and this article only covers the basics. Also, this article has to cater to children that might use this article. Terms like “meron” and “notopleuron” are too advantaced. Link terms like these to other articles so they can be explained. Remember, you have a wide range when it comes to you audience and you have to cater to both extremes. Other than that, this is a good article. --Sadiezapalac (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)