Talk:Chrysomya

This article is rated Stub-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 articles
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 articles
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.

Untitled[edit]

Your article is very comprehensive and a great article! Only a few suggestions for you! The references should go right after the punctuation, not before, and with no space in between. Also, I'd check some of your grammar, I fixed a few comma errors as I saw them, but there are more comma errors that could be fixed. Also, I believe you meant 10-12 millimeters instead of centimeters on the description. You need to spell out distance measurements (so an automated bot told me). You might also want to change hours to days on the life cycle, because huge lists of days aren't as easy understood by the reader as days are. But other than that, it looks great! You have a lot of information and really included some of the species in depth. Your summary on how to distinguish C. rufifaces and C. megacephala is great. Should you want to add more, on our page Chrysomya bezziana, there are ways to distinguish ours from C. megacephala as well if you want to add more information to yours. I would also check your links, you have C. bezziana linked a few times (when it only needs to be linked once), but I don't think C. rufifacies was ever linked. Great job though! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Dachshundcrazy. We will try to take a look at your suggestions and fix anything that needs to be corrected. If you could be a little more specific about where grammar and/or punctuation is a problem then we would really appreciate that. Thanks for the support.Bkret (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)BKret[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

One suggestion on the description section: you might want to go in chronological order:eggs, larvae, pupa, adult. You should try to include some info on all stages of life cycle instead of just adult and larva, if information is available. (I liked that you gave specific examples on egg laying methods of specific species though!!!)

Great info on C. rufifacies!!!! [:

I think the article is good, just little amounts of punctuation (which i went ahead and corrected, they were no big deal!)

Great job guys!!! Very useful info on Chrysomya!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmedina21 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if those above comments were all made by the same person, but thank you for the input! We included the small details about the egg and pupa characteristics in the section over life cycles. The chronological order is also observed further down in the life cycle section. We simply started with an approximation of hours required for development of different stages because that would be some of the more important information in PMI estimation.Bkret (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article. I just have a couple of suggestions. For instance, in the introduction, where you state, "Chrysomya adults are typically metallic colored with thick setae on the meron and plumose arista." it doesn't really flow with the rest of the paragraph and can just be used in the description section instead of the introduction. Also, just a couple grammatical errors: "And, as with many fly genera primary and secondary myiasis is possible but unlikely." There just needs to be a comma after genera and before primary. " The pupal stage ranges from 134 hours to 162 hours, and finally the adult emerges around the 237th hour to the 289th hour." This sentence seems kind of random where it is, maybe you could move it to where you are actually talking about pupation. "In accordance with such forensic importance studies are being done" this sentence needs to have a comma after importance and before studies. Those are just my minor suggestions, but overall this is a very well researched article! Deepa.lalu (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, your article is very well researched and extremely informative! One thing that kind of confused me was a sentence under "Predation". The sentence was: 'Two of the major predatory species of the genus Calliphoridae include: C. rufifacies and C. albiceps'. In this sentence you make it sound like the genus is Calliphoridae but when I clicked on the link for C. albiceps it shows that the genus is Chrysomya. You may just want to change 'genus' in the sentence to 'family'. Other than that it's a great article with detail shown in all the right places. TXAG09 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, TXAG09. I have changed that to read "family" instead of "genus". Thanks again.Bkret (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that this was an extremely well written article, with few areas in need of improvement. The few things I did notice was one sentence in particular stuck out to me under the species section. "C. megacephala exhibits a widely ranged distribution throughout the Asian regions..." I felt that this could be reworded to make it sound better and have a more intellectual sounding language. The final thing I noticed on your page was when you merely listed the identifiable traits of the species, I felt it would have been better to actually write in sentence format so as to make your page stronger, rather than just continuosly listing something. All in all this was a very good article and I was impressed. Good job you guys!Nav52 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written article! One main thing is that you should probably put some of your references in the introduction. Wikipedia's guidelines page says that this is important to avoid being charges with plagiarism. Also you have a few links that do not link to anything. RodeoAggie (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice page. The only thing I felt needed to be changed is the fact that you put the characteristics in the introduction section. You don't need this intro if you have a specific section on description. It just seemed a little repetitive. The rest of this page looks for well researched and very informative. Ptshults (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]