Talk:Calliphora loewi

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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.
	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.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on early 2009. Further details are available here.

Typos

The information is quite concise. I might add a little to each of the paragraph to beef it up some or find a way to group them together. Also, in the first paragraph I would change bluebottle to either blue bottle or blue-bottle. Hopps12714 (talk 14:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read over our page. The change to blue bottle has been made.Slaytwebeling (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence of the first paragraph "and in the genus Callaphora", i believe you mean "genus Calliphora". Also, in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph "The posterior of the head is concave with 3 to 5 rows of black seat", i believe you meant "setae" instead of "seat". Other than that your article looks good.

Lflores0812 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTCL

Lflores0812- Thank you for bringing those mistakes to our attention.Slaytwebeling (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there were any cases that use this species to determine PMI. I know these are not found in United States, but if it would strengthen the page if you could give at least one example. Other than that, it was very organized and detailed. The history section may lack depth but I understand it is hard to find information for. Good job.Heedeok (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read over our page. We were unable to find any cases that determined PMI.Slaytwebeling (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

You might want to make your introduction a little longer. It is supposed to be a summry of your article. Someone gave us this advice for our page, so I thought I would pass it along. But otherwise, your article looks great! Vekrull (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above me in that your introduction should be a little longer to give a greater overview on what you will be describing in the article. You want to be able to convince the reader that all the information he/she will want to find out is included within the article so he doesn't just look elsewhere because he doesnt want to take the chance of the information not being there in the end. Also, there are a couple of other sections you have included through the article that are VERY short (as in 1 or 2 sentences). Once such section that comes to mind is the History section. I understand that there may not be much information available at this time so maybe you should write something to that effect just so it doesn't look like you just didn't finish writing the article. Other than that, I believe you did a great job - especially with the life cycle section I like the way you organized it! RxAggie246 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again for you input, I have edited the introduction to have a better summary of our page, Thanks (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hey guys. Your article is really nice and informative. I just have some formatting suggestions. First off, I think it would be better if the word "Calliphora" was not linked in the scientific name "Calliphora loewi", but rather link it when you say, "in the genus Calliphora." The way it is linked now is a little confusing. Also, instar is linked repeatedly when it really only needs to be done once. Finally, is there some way for you to combine the History section with another section? It just seems a little choppy to me that that section only has one sentence. Otherwise, your article is really great. I hope my comments are helpful. Feel free to take a look at our article, Lucilia mexicana, and let us know what you think! Simonthelion (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean by the confusion with Calliphora. I fixed the excess links, but I will leave the history section edit to the group member who wrote it to tweak. Thanks for your input.--Jdarnell (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinions about the History section. The History information is now included in the Description section. --Blair1126 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to applaud you all for making do with the little information that is out there for C. loewi. I saw that your history section is quite short...you might want to try emailing some of the people who you got your references from to see if they could help you with any information on this particular species. I did this with our Lucilia silvarum page and was able to get pictures and links to great articles from the authors themselves. Hopefully this can be of help to you all! Overall this article is clear and concise. You might want to make your introduction longer to give a broader view of your entire page so that the reader can be introduced more clearly. Good luck! Cassiegz (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinions about the History section. The History information is now included in the Description section. --Blair1126 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So as I was reading this article I noticed that the first sentence could possibly be reworded to sound better. It seemed like it was just a roughly thrown together sentence. I have to agree that you guys have done an excellent job with what little information has been provided but I think you can still make the page stronger by adding at least one picture to give the reader an idea of what they are being told about. Other than that you guys did a great job! --Nav52 (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I really enjoyed this article; it was very detailed and informative. I did however find a few errors in the Forensic section. The first sentence should be in present tense and maybe be worded like, “Forensic entomology is the study of arthropods and their connection to the courts of law.” instead of “Forensic entomology is the study of arthropods as they pertain, used, or connected to the courts of law.” The current definition it a bit unclear. Also "blowflies" in the Forensic and Research sections needs to be changed to "blow flies" or "blow-flies". Other than that it looks great.DianaW10 (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read over our article. I went ahead and made the changes you suggested above.Slaytwebeling (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "blowflies" spelling, the use in this article is correct according to dictionary.com and in the majority of the utilized sources. For consistency, the article will keep the current spelling. Thanks for your input.--Jdarnell (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few ideas that might contribute to the effectiveness of your article. First, I can tell you have put time and effort into creating this article; good job! I first ran across a minor detail in the description section. You could probably remove 'than in' when comparing the males to females (I know, very picky). Next, you end the paragraph discussing the female's antennae. Well, my question is: How do the female antennae compare to the male antennae? Maybe you could briefly compare and contrast those. And finally, good idea including a link through the word 'Fennoscandia.' I would have been lost without the link! Thanks for a great read! SjLangsta (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was very descriptive and well organized. Each section was short, but informative. In the section Food Source the first sentence may need a little revising, it says "The maggots have hook-like mouth parts that tear apart the tissues they live." Maybe it should say "tear apart the tissues where they live or something along those lines. Other than that it is a great article! Mnjennings (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good over-all job. A few things I think need changing, the starting sentence could be a little less wordy in my opinion, I had to read it a few times to understand what you where saying, maybe breaking the color classification into two separate sentences would help. I also think you could spice up the intro, I don't find it too intriguing, I would put your most interesting fact up there to get the reader excited about the rest of the article. Probably something involving forensics. Next, in the second paragraph I think it unnecessary to hyperlink Calliphora for a second time, but that can be up to you. I also think that you should keep a consistency while capitalizing your titles, keep the second word lowercase in all of them. I am also curious what the normal size of antennae are because you use them in a comparison to the females antennae size. One last thing, did you read what digestive enzyme they spit onto their prey? This is a very interesting fact, yet I think you should say which enzyme. Other than this I really enjoyed your article. --Ashaggie09 (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments and taking time to read our page! Those changes have been made. Blair1126 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was interesting and intriguing to read. The introduction could be worded more concisely and smoother. For instance, you could replace "very much" with "a decent quantity", or another way of making it sound more clear to the reader. You could also incorporate pictures to complement your in depth analysis of the calliphora description. Photos of the antennae or the male/female frontal heads would be necessary. Also, you should hyperlink dimethyl disulfide in your research section of the article, not all the readers are chemistry experts. Furthermore, you should also hyperlink setae and Denmark in your article. Overall, i learned alot from your informative research, good job! Mliu715 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Minor changes

Looking through your article I found just a couple of simple corrections that I believe could better your article. In the second sentence of the description section you use the word specimen, and I think you want it to be specimens. Also, in the food source section, your first sentence ends with the preposition "on". I believe a better sentence would read : that tear apart the tissues on which they live. Also, on the heading of your food source section - source should not be capitalized (Food source). Lastly, in the final sentence of your article (...currently unknown and also can be further looked into.) I believe that (...currently unknown and also may be further researched.) would provide a stronger closing. I know these changes are minor but your article looks good and these were the only errors I could find! --Skk1214aggie (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)skk1214aggie[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read over our page. We have made the suggested changes above.Slaytwebeling (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of minor suggestions regarding your article. It is very difficult to find information on a species that is rare, you have done a good job. When Gunter Enderlein is mentioned I would use 'a' instead of 'the.' Also, you could link the other species that you described in your article to get more hits. In addition, unfortunately, some people may not know what an entomologist is. I would link that too. Nice work. Euroento (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! It's fixed now. Thanks for the comment. Blair1126 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a very nice job on this article, considering the lack of information and research on this species. The Life cycle section is very well done. One suggestion I would like to make is to change the link on "mechanical vectors of disease" to just the "mechanical vector" part. The entire phrase does not necessarily need to be linked. A picture of the species would also be optimal, but it's understandable if it's difficult to procure. Great job on this article! Julianna1587 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall you did a great job on your article, but there are just a couple things I found while reading it that I think could use some editing. Personally I feel that the organization of the first sentence in the introduction is a little confusing... "Calliphora loewi is part of the family Calliphoridae, bottle flies and blowflies, and in the genus Calliphora, blue bottle flies." I would suggest either adding "commonly known as" before "bottle flies and blowflies," or separating the sentence into two and discussing the genus with the second sentence. ex: C. loewi belongs to the genus Calliphora, or blue bottle flies, but this genus can be deceiving because C. loewi is not blue. It might also help to say what color C. loewi actually is. Anyway, I hope this helped! Good job!--Karajean88 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with comment above about the first sentence. It is a little choppy, and I recommend fixing it. A picture would have been nice, but I think that the detailed description made up for it. The life cycle section was organized well and was easy to read. I do suggest that the introduction be longer. Perhaps adding a little background history and etymology would be nice. Other than that I thought it was great! --Sp2011 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job guys! I just found a few things that could be changed. First, the Life cycle section should have "cycle" lowercased. Under description it might flow better if you said "C.loewi is a rare species that is often confused with C.terraenovae because some species have a similar reddish genal groove." And under Description, try not to use "also" twice in a row. You could say "The females have very large antennae..." Overall I think your page is written really well.Tbernzen (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for catching the capitalization error! It has been fixed. Blair1126 (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! I enjoyed reading it. I liked how you incorporated several of what we learned in class about how its family is involved in the field of forensic entomology, ie the determination of PMI. A few suggestions, you should try to look up cases that involves your species because it would greatly strengthen your article and how it and its family is forensically important. Also, the first sentence on the Food Source section might be missing an ending it says "tear apart the tissues they live", I would suggest to maybe change it to "...tissues in which they subside in". Overall, I thought your article was well written. Pbianca88 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.55.246 (talk) [reply]

Thanks for the comment and reading our article. The typo in the Food Source section has been corrected. Blair1126 (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]