Talk:Cochliomyia

Untitled

This article has a lot of good information and is organized very well. The only problem that I can point out is that you could have put more internal Wikipedia links in the characteristic section. For example, you could link to the setae and the pedipalp pages, as well as a few others. But overall its a great article.--Angelina5288 (talk) 02:36, 26 March 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)

Comments

Howdy guys thanks for viewing our article and commenting. im going to go look at the conclusion now and see if it needs editing. thanks again and i hope this article was interesting and useful to ya'll. Thanks and Gig 'Em (DivoTheAggie (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

This article is fantastic! However, because it is a for all intents and purposes an encyclopedia article, I really feel like the conclusion section actually takes away from the article. It simply is not necessary to have a wrap up. Bmb4516 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I LOVE the top right hand picture. It's very eyecatching and kind of looks like a monster from a horror film. Cool! In your intro you use "we will focus on", this sounds a bit informal. Take out the use of first-person. You mention that C. hominivorax feeds on live animal tissue. Include that they feed on live human tissue too...which is arguably much more frightening! (if you found specific pictures of human examples...even more cool!) In the adult section you speak of "keying out" a species. Trying using a more formal/official way of phrasing that, since this is an encyclopedia. In the history of C. macellaria, take out "admittedly" because this, again, sounds informal. Also, overall some of your sections are overly long. The lack of division makes it difficult to read. Consider breaking your long sections down into smaller parts so it is easier for the reader to find specific information. This article was extremely thorough and informative! entogirl88 (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, just looking at your article and the content is great! I noticed that in the references section there are URL's listed. Please note that wikipedia prefers having links to the websites at the beginning of the reference, rather than a URL. I have copied an example from our own article Forensic Entomological Decomposition for you to follow because it can be really to understand. So, here you go:

<ref name=Vass>[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:fZ0vNjwsJ50J:www.sgm.ac.uk/pubs/micro_today/pdf/110108.pdf+vass+decomposition&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Publications: Microbiology Today] Vass, Arpad A. "Beyond the Grave- Understanding Human Decomposition." Publications: Microbilogy Today. Nov. 2001. The Society for General Microbiology. 12 Feb. 2008 </ref>

Good luck!--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Great page--very thorough and well done. We are linking our page (blow-fly) to yours under our economic importance section. Is there any way you could take a picture in the class lab of an adult? I think it would be a good touch to your page. I really like the larva picture on your taxobox. Alli5414 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I know about screwworms, this is a well covered article. I liked the section about how we were able to eradicate this species from the United States. However, I think you need to link some of the more scientific terms to other pages. Experts need to be able to use this article, but you have to keep in mind that there could be elementary children reading this article as well. They’ll be blown away by some of the terminology used in the article. Try to keep things simple and link things that can’t be simplified. Other than that, this is a great article. --Sadiezapalac (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is packed with great information. However, there is way too much repetition from one section to the next. Try to consolidate your facts so that the data is only given once throughout the article. For example, you don't need to restate the facts you've already given in the "Life Cycle" portion again in the "General information" sections. Also, you need to wikify the terms used in the article or explain them if a wikipedia page doesn't already exist for linking--especially in the "Characteristics" section (meron, plumose arista, gena, filiform palps, notum, setulae, basicosta, peritreme, sclerite, stem vein--these arn't terms that the average person will be familiar with). And since the "Human management" section is so lengthy you might want to try and break it up into subheadings if it at all possible. And lastly, in the intro where it says, "Cochliomyia hominivorax are known as the Primary screwworm because its larvae..." you need to replace "its" with "their" for plural agreement with the "are" at the beginning of these two statements. Overall, this is a great article and I can tell that you worked tremendously hard at putting it together. It just needs a few tweaks and it will be perfect.Manwiches (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has tons of information, and I think it was very well done. One of my favorite aspects of the page was the colorful pictures! They really grabbed my attention! It's also great to have such a powerful visual. One suggestion I do have is that I think you should add pictures of a wound on an animal or person that has been infested with screwworms. This might add to people's understanding of why it was so necessary that they be eradicated in the first place. This is a very interesting article and definitely one of my favorites!! --Dmhenry1216 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of the best articles i have read yet. I think that if you are going to mention homnivorax and macelleria that i general mention of the other two would make the article even better. Even though they haven't made as big of an impact reading about all of the species would make your article that much better.--Escaladebball29 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Another very well written article. The only thing I would add would be more info on effects of livestock. Jdritchey4 (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion removal

This article looks very unprofessional with a conclusion, it should be removed. King (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, it is still present in New York City

You can find it in public plazas and parks and is quite extended. Also in subway corridors and entrances and waste baskets outside chain stores with restrooms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.56.204 (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)