Talk:Chrysomya rufifacies

I can really appreciate this article. Like our group (#26), it just did not stick to the fly itself; y'all went into the economic and future field of it, which puts into perspective of how important this species is in the forensic entomology world. I too would want to see detail pictures but nonetheless you get my Aggie thumb of approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBryant44 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just like that the common name of this fly is hairy maggot blow fly that just sounds gross. It is pretty well written the only thing i would have liked to have seen is more pictures like of flies actually on a body maybe.Jdpage (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job, guys! It was nice that y'all didn't just stick to forensic implications of the species, but ya'll also covered economic effects and stuff! Labright (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is great how the group included the importance of Chrysomya rufufacies in different areas such as medically an economically. It gives the reader an idea of how important this species can be. This article overall is well written and informative. Great job and good luck!Aggie turtle21 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)aggieturtle21

I know the copyright guidelines are difficult but it would be cool if you guys used a picture of the larvae so people would really undertsand why they are called the hairy maggot blowfly. --Angelina5288 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• We have this maggot in the urban lab right now--talk to me or Micah and set up a time to come in and take some pictures.ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Really thorough article. My only suggestion would be to create more internal links, possibly with other pages from our classmates. We linked our page to yours! I fixed a sentence in the Forensic section that did not have a space between two sentences. Alli5414 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is very informative and concise. My only suggestion would be to add a sentence or two, around where you talk about the rufifacies being predaceous, about how in particular it can alter the PMI if it predates on the Cochliomyia macellaria which are usually one of the first Calliphorids to colonize the dead body. So if rufifacies is found on a corpse the forensic entomologist must take this into consideration when figuring out the PMI. Other than that, great article. Phodges09 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job on this species. You put a lot of useful information on here about it. Hopefully this will be used by many people for a long time to come.--Kmh2003 (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad that you guys chose Chrysomya rufifacies to do the article about. I like how you stated that this species of blow fly is very important is forensic entomology in the introduction of the article, and then again how you broke that down and explain all the reasons WHY the hairy maggot blowfly is important. I think it is important that you divided it up into medical importance, versus forensic importance, and so on. I'm a sucker for pictures  :-) I would have liked to have seen more. It just helps to break up the information presented in the article and keep the readers eyes and mind fresh and interested in what you're saying. I also really liked your explaination of the taxonomy of the name. This is extremely important in helping people understand how this species got its name and what it means. Good job team! --Brokenice928 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikified

I really liked this article. It goes into depth on all major subjects. You all covered the basics on life cycle and went into depth on how they affect us economically and medically. I did not realize their importance.I really enjoyed the pics. Nice!dbw279 (talk) dbw279

Overall I think this is a great article. I do believe that the last 3 or 4 sections could have more words that are "wikified" so that the average reader doesn't get lost within all the words. You did a great job with this is the beginning of the article but the ending sounds more like a research paper. I think if you just wikify and maybe split up some paragraphs it will look dandy! Kt babe8 (talk) 00:02, 12 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) 20:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion section

Hi, the conclusion section seems out of place and perhaps can be merged into the Forensic importance section. The lead paragraph could also have one or two lines mentioning the economic, medical and forensic importance. --220.255.7.227 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

This is just a suggestion, but I think it may be a good idea to add a picture of the hairy maggot. Just because this will be seen more commonly in forensics than the adult fly.--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Proofread

This article is fantastic. The information presented is extremely well researched and organized. I caught a few typos, so give it a quick read through and you should be golden. Suggestions: scan the "Medical" section for mistakes (first sentence - "in a 'maggot therapy'; last sentence - supposed to 'harmful when involved'??); there are alot of intermittent changes between Chrysomya rufifacies and C. rufifacies, maybe just pick one and stick with it throughout the article; be sure that you use "larvae" for the plural ("Forensic" section - "The facultatively predacious...larva")Manwiches (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Great article, guys! A few minor adjustments include: the dead links on Chrysomya albiceps and peritreme should be changed to external links; in the 1st paragraph under "Life Cycle", the sentence "Chrysomya rufifacies is especially important..." doesn't italicize Chrysomya rufifacies; under the "Forensic" title, 3rd paragraph down, C. Rufifacies is incorrectly capitalized. These few, minor mistakes do not take away from the overall completeness of this article -- quite easily the best I've read from our class! JRechy (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I liked the article. I liked its coverage on the life cycle. Interesting. I was also glad to see that most of the typos were gone, after the first time I read it. I know typos are difficult to deal with, but they really do stand out in the crowd. I am the worlds worst at misspelling words, and makeing typos. ANyway, good job, and good luck. Daniel Isbell 1230 16April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielisbell (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article! Very thorough! I think you did a great job covering the importance of it, not only forensically, but economically and medically. Overall, I think you covered everything very well. I especially liked the taxonomy paragrapy, found it very interesting to see where its name came from. Annemarye (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, this article gives great information under each sub title. I like the forensic section it is very interesting how the fly can get to a body within 10 minutes after death. Those are some weird looking larva.:) I glad you put a picture of the larva up to show why its sometimes called the "hairy maggot blowfly." Ms.mitch (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Ms.Mitch

Good job on writing the article. It hits all the points it needs to hit and then some. The pictures i think help out.Stogie77 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well-done, thorough article. I liked how detailed you were in addressing the consequences of the larval tendency to be facultatively predacious. One (nit-picky) thing I would change is to standardize how ya'll write the word "blow-fly", because in your single article you've done both "blowfly" and "blow-fly". We had the same problem with "screwworm" in our article. Everything else was great.Jablan1 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Jablan1

Really good article guys! Incredibly informative. I really like all the references being used throughout the article. Y'all did a great job organizing the material. The section on importance is very well written and detailed. Also, the intro summary is very clear and well-representative of the article ahead. In the description section, maybe the larvae should be put first, and then adult, in order of the actualy life cycle. Unless you are following the belief of chicken before the egg, which may be the case. It's your choice. The life cycle and description section could be combined into just the life cycle. When mentioning the larvae and adult in the life cycle section, you could include the discriptions in the previous section. Just a suggestion. Overall, really nice work guys! Kellyorr1 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)