Talk:Anastrepha ludens

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): OstapKukhar (article contribs). Peer reviewers: RachelXinruHua, XuLily, Mmhua.

Insects Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Anastrepha ludens is currently an Earth sciences good article nominee. Nominated by OstapKukhar (talk) at 23:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review

This is a solid, well-written article than can be further improved by more citations! For example, the Parental Care section does not have any citations. I fixed several spelling errors like "lak" instead of lek, and I edited some phrasing and grammar in a few sentences. I also added some links to important terms like oviposit, pheromones, and instars. I like the way you ordered the section headings; it gives structure and flow to the article. Nice job! --Mmhua (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article touches upon a broad range of topics. One of its highlights is the intensity of detail and linkings about known habitats. For content present, citations could be added in several locations. For edits, I added some more links to other Wikipedia pages, added some subheadings for Life History, and added some images. Some sections, such as Genetics, or the specifies of parasitoid interacitons, could be described more in detail. Overall, the article is well-written, could use more citations, has broad coverage, neutral writing, and now has additional illustrations. XuLily (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is complete and has detailed sections on behavior, particularly regarding mating, parental care, and social behaviors; however, numerous well-written sections are completely devoid of citation. I reorganized the introduction section and also generated subheadings for the "Mating" section. I found the biggest chunk of text was the list of fruit, which I converted into a bullet list for better accessibility. RachelXinruHua (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Citations

Some sections have little to no citations and this information should be traced back to its sources: Mating, Parental Care, Social Behavior, Protective Coloration, and Genetics. XuLily (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As of January 2012, the US was considered free of Mexican fruit flies." needs a citation. Other than that line, entire sections are missing citations entirely. Instead of deleting all information completely right now or pursuing the original sources, the original contributor to the sections ought to create appropriate citations. RachelXinruHua (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the missing citations. I cited all that you guys told me to and deleted anything I could not cite. OstapKukhar (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I loved the extensive detail you covered for the Life History and Physical description of males/females. The research covered a wide variety of different areas, which was organized in a concise manner. I noted a few places in the "Genetics", "Life History", and "Adults" sections that still require reputable citations. Rchiou (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting information in Distribution

The lines "It is an invasive species to the US." and "As of January 2012, the US was considered free of Mexican fruit flies." seem conflicting. Was the species once a conflicting species and now no longer one? Is there a source for this second statement about the species being eradicated from the United States? XuLily (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that sentence as it was missleading. For the most part the US is free of these flies but they are continuously being brought in with fruit and therefore keep poping up in the US. I changed it to say there are no current erradication efforts. Thanks! OstapKukhar (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]