Talk:Anastrepha ludens

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Anastrepha ludens was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 6, 2020, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Insects 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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. Peer reviewers: RachelXinruHua, XuLily, Mmhua.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you to the authors who contributed to this article! It is a very thorough article with a strong lead paragraph and several helpful images throughout. As other users on this talk page have mentioned, there are some claims in the article that require citations. I have added a new source and information about the effect of female-male contact on female reproductive potential under the adult life history subsection. Overall though, this is a strong article. joshkim_wustl (talk) 4:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Great work on this article. There is a lot of information, and most of it was clearly organized and appeared unbiased. I particularly liked all of the images that were included. I edited some grammar/spelling errors as well as deleted some sentences that appeared redundant in order to increase clarity and flow of the article. I think your citations need work and added some "citations needed" signs where I thought proper citations were needed. It also might be to your benefit to look for more than 17 sources, since this is a very long article, it may be best to vary your sources a little more. This is a great start to an article and contains a multitude of information, I think some work needs to be done with citations in order for it to better fit with the Wikipedia guidelines. You could also possibly add a physiology section, however I understand if this information could not be found. Overall, great job and keep working to improve this article. Christina.lindberg (talk) 4:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive article! Small detail, but it may be helpful to clarify in the microbiome section who M. Aluja is (like stating he is a researcher or just taking his name out altogether). I fixed several spelling mistakes like "posses" and "deopsit." I also italicized the genus and species for all the food hosts in the Habitat section, then italicized the fly names in the Reference section. Well done! --Mmhua (talk) 22:45, 3 December 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]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anastrepha ludens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

There's a lot of structural qualms I have. The one sentence in the Protective coloration section should be in the Description section; Habitat and Food resources seem to talk about the same thing and should be merged; the information in the Social behavior section should be moved to relevant sections because there's no point in having a Social behavior section if it's just gonna repeat information from other places.

I ended up deleting the protective coloration section because I could not find original source for it. As for social behavior see previous comment about structure. I am willing to redo the structure to not follow the Diptera project outline if neccesary. Also I am not sure how to properly reply so feel free to move my comments to a more apropriate section. Thank you! OstapKukhar (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly unusual structure for an article. Normally what I see is Classification, Description, Life history (Mating, Development), Ecology

I am following the structure outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Diptera here. I can redo it to fit the mentioned structure but not sure which one is better. OstapKukhar (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many hard rules in Wikipedia, just guidelines just in case you're kinda lost. It's best to do what's best for the article rather than make the information fit into guidelines, because guidelines are too broad to work for every article. There are a lot of of subsections that comprise only 1 or 3 sentences, which is not good. There's no reason to split if you don't have much to split, so merge the sections User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a citation needed tag in the Genetics section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. OstapKukhar (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of images in the Larvae section so you may wanna use {{multiple image}} User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done OstapKukhar (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italicize scientific names User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done OstapKukhar (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pupae section doesn't actually give any information specific to the fly, it just gives the definition of pupa User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information and pictures about Pupae are specific to this species. It is naturally similar to other similar fly species. User:Dunkleosteus77 OstapKukhar (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are still far too many tiny sections. Merge them. Don't worry about the WikiProject Diptera layout. Focus on just this article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merged many of the sections are restructured. Could you let me know if overall structure is ok now and what you would change. OstapKukhar (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, not really GA quality yet, and failing for inactivity User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]