Talk:Phormia regina

Hey! I think this article is great. I would check a bit of grammar and maybe try to split up the section about the life cycles so it can flow better. Megalatta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalatta (talk • contribs) 05:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 21 March 2008. Further details are available here.

A fact from Phormia regina appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 March 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/March.

Wikipedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Overall, this article is organized very well and has plenty of references to back up the facts. The only negative thing about your article is that there aren't any pictures. Even just a single picture above the scientific classification box would be fine. --Angelina5288 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is interesting, and I just want to add a couple of minor suggestions: -Under Medicinal importance, you have 'Veterinarians could add ...' - perhaps the 'could' should be changed to sound more scholarly - something along the lines of '... is a new possibility for veterinarians.' -Maybe you should rename the heading 'discovery' since the subject matter below is more further research than the actual discovery of Phormia regina. Good luck! --Gdespejo (talk)

Pictures

Hey guys! This is a great article. Have you thought about coming out to the lab to take pictures? We have P. regina in culture now, so you would be able to get pictures of the full life cycle. Let me or Micah know. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking/Characteristics

I thought your article was very well written and researched. I think it would help if you maybe had a section or subheading for the physical characteristics of the fly separate from the introduction. It would make it more organized. I noticed you had a physiology section which is great, but a section for characteristics such as color would be more organized. I also think you should link to the maggot therapy page in the subheading medical importance. I went ahead and took the liberty of linking for you. Garza j e (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)garza_j_e (talk)[reply]

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) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Great job on the article. I noticed that you have some references listed multiple times; look at some of the other articles or a featured article to see how to properly cite the sources. Motoliyat (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The introduction and taxonomy sections have word for word some of the same information. It's good information, but only needs to be there once. We're linking our page to yours! Alli5414 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great informative article! There are lot of cool facts that have been recognized and it's put together very well. I also think that one way to even improve it more would be to add some pictures. As a reader who may very well be interested in this species know what they look like, but for all those non-entomology fanatics out there have no idea. Just something to think about. Jbratz (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]