Talk:Drosophila nigrospiracula

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eengermann (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jillian Shah, Y.shiuan, Hannahwhite97.

---

Peer review

I edited the overview/introduction section to be shorter and more concise. It can be confusing to have many short paragraphs in the beginning. I also made grammatical edits, and hyperlinked concepts such as pheromone, steroid, mutagen and carcinogen, which may not be familiar to all readers. I also added a sentence on the relationship between D. nigrospiracula and D. mettleri. This was a clear and concise article.Hannahwhite97 (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed some formatting of paragraphs because some paragraphs were very short but still followed the previous paragraph’s topic, so I combined some of them. I also added hyperlinks to details, like the cactus species. I also suggested that additional citations be put in the second paragraph of the mating section, because it’s not clear that this was directly from the reference. I added a newing sub-heading under enemies. Also, the 2nd paragraph of “Effects of parasitism…” was a bit confusing in that it wasn’t clear which males and females it was referring to. Y.shiuan (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

A first look at the article shows visual flow and that the information has been broken down into more-accessible, brief, sections. The page features an adequate taxobox and a content box that outlines the categories in the article. Further, the writer has hyperlinked necessary words that may help the reader better comprehend the information provided in the article.

The lead section is short and well-written, however, I have broken down the single paragraph into three to make the information appear less dense. The writer has done a phenomenal job in adding examples of the species of flies D. nigrospiracula is associated with.

I have removed unnecessary wording throughout the article to make information less wordy and more succinct. The writer has done a phenomenal job in summarizing information extracted from the multitude of references used, and no signs of plagiarism are apparent. Further, the article has only referenced reliable sources, and the studies identified are substantial.

Under the “Home Range” category, I have hyperlinked gigantine and have removed , “Unlike the other 4 Drosophila species, D. nigrospiracula can breed on either cardón or saguaro cacti.”. The proceeding information is not accurate because other species (ie. D. metlerri is also capable of breeding on these two species of cacti. I have also removed modifiers such as “things such as” from the article in order to make the article more parallel and less colloquial.

Under the “Enemies” category, I have moved the reference to the end of the paragraph to show that the same reference contains all of the information found within that section.

Overall, the writer has done an exemplary job in synthesizing dense and complex information from the references he chose. Not only did he not simply reword extracted information, but he also whittled down his information into extremely accessible and short pieces of text. Only minor grammatical edits have been made, and the writer uses language devoid of uselessly complex words. Images have been added to the page, and these images are pertinent to the article. The images have been explained using a caption as well. All in all, the article shows special care to detail and even creates a story that can be attached to this fly species. The article is an excellent start and provides a framework for great expansion in years to come. For edits made by this user, please visit the View history page (User: JillianShah). Jillian Shah (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

---