Talk:Fannia scalaris

Suggestions

• This page is good. I gave you the original and then made my corrections in quotations. Make sure you go through you whole paper and make your GENUS and SPECIES ITALICIZED.

Intro

• latrine fly... you can make the word “LATRINE” an internal link
• When you are writing encyclopedic make the information brief and to the point. The word VERY isn’t necessary. You actually make a better impact if you don’t inset words like that. Try and delete VERY so many times from your paper.
• Great intro! Its brief and gives a good idea of what the page is about.

Description

• The larvae of F. scalaris when full grown are 6 to 8 mm in length, white or cream colored, and slightly flattened dorsally. Insert commas before WHEN and after GROWN, this is extra info that can be deleted and the sentence will still make sense. “The larvae of F. Scalaris, when full grown, are 6 to 8 mm in length, white or cream colored, and slightly flattened dorsally.”
• Good flow in this section.

Life History

• You might want to check this up, but I am 99% sure that you don’t want to end a sentence in a preposition like in the sentence, They prefer high nitrogenous material to feed on. Say “F.scalaris prefers to feed on nitrogenous material.”
• I would add more, if you are able to find more info, in the sections Distributions thru Veterinary Importance. They are informative, but you could add some more info to help people who have no clue what is going on to understand your better.

Research

Your article looks nice. I especially like the pictures. However, I think you should add a comma after "decomposition" in the second para under "Research". Other than that, I think everything flows nicely. Great job! Aimaggie (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• The research section is good.
• Italicized your genus and species. Remember you can substitute F. for Fannia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkw0509 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the article. I went through and italicized all the genus and species and corrected the sentences. Thanks again for the suggestions! --Kali615 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The sections Medical, Veterinary, and Forensic could be confusing to outside readers. I would suggest maybe grouping them together into one big section and make them into subheadings or adding Importance to the end of each section heading to allow users to understand exactly what the section is about. Nrey2009 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It is fixed, and I agree it is more clear and looks better. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggento10 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article looks great. If I were to fix anything I would maybe link a few more of the bigger words in the description section, like protuberances or puparium just to help out the reader. I like how you provided an example to show the variance between the sexes of the species. It’s clear and easy to read. Charlejo (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would put more information on the medical/vet importance, like how to prevent or treat myaisis, or other problems that can be caused by the fly. The article is great, it was easy to read. Penn195 (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Great job guys! All in all your page is very supported and well done. Maybe a little more information on the importance sections and possibly a geography or habitat section could be an idea. The article was easy to read and very interesting. Great work. Sarahgrace12 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read our paper and give us your comments. I added some links to the page in the description section, I hope this makes the reading easier and more clear. We are currently working to add more information to our importance sections. Let us know if you have any information or suggestions. Thanks for your comments. Aggento10 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think is article is very well informed but could use a few corrections here and there. For one, the introduction was a little choppy and may need to be reworded to create a better wordflow. The description I think could have been better organized instead of of having facts written randomly throughout the paragraph. The last few sentences of "Life History" I think could be one sentence instead of three separate ones. Other than these few minor details I think the article was great! Hellohello2011 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)hellohello11

Thank you for revising our article. We will work on making it better organized and easier to read. --Kali615 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Because "haltere" is mispelled in the description section, it links to the wrong website. Make sure when you change the spelling, the link also changes to the correct website. The description section is heavy on vocabulary words that may be hard to understand for some. I would at least link more of the words, such as "mesothoraic leg" or at least explain what it is. You could even add a picture that points out where these parts are. Also, There are several words that could be internally linked throughout the page (femur, tibia, etc). Overall, good job! The information is very thorough. Klfoster (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)KLFoster

Thank you for reading our page. I have fixed the misspelling and are taking your other suggestion into consideration. Baumgartner aggie09 (Baumgartner aggie09) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the Life History section, the facts are good but it doesn't really go well as a paragraph. Because it seems to be just straight facts that don't go together very fluidly, it may be better to format it as bullet points for the life cycle. Good article overall. Wggrant (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reading our page and making suggestions. We will take that into consideration. --Kali615 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the introduction doesn’t flow to well. It is a little choppy. I suggest editing the paragraph a little. For instance, I don’t think the sentence “The life cycle of this species can be as long as one month” fits in too well in the paragraph. I do like the detail of the description paragraph. The article is great overall, it just needs to flow together in the introduction paragraph. --Sp2011 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. We will take them into consideration. Baumgartner aggie09 (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Picky, I know, but easy fixes.The word dorsally is misspelled (it needs two "l"'s) in your description section. You might want to change it to dorso-ventrally flattened. Also in the same section, the word haltere is also misspelled (the "e" at the end is missing). Also just as a suggestion, since both medical and veternary importance are basically the same, put them under one heading. Good job otherwise. Txmaroonandwhite (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading our page and for the comments. I fixed the misspellings and will review the other suggestions. Baumgartner aggie09 (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Research section

I thought that this was a good article, but I had a little bit of trouble understanding your "Research" section. Specifically, the last two sentences didn't make sense to me. I think you should be more specific as to what "being affected" means (are you referring to myiasis?). Also, what "similar symptoms" are you referring to? Are these two sentences supposed to relate to an earlier paragraph? If so, I think you should somehow reference it because these sentences don't seem to make sense by themselves. Bg27 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I edited the research section, I hope this makes the reading more clear and easier to understand. Thanks again. Aggento10 (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your details made it much easier to understand! The only thing I would consider changing is deleting the phrase "a very well developed country" after Canada. I think you did a well enough job explaining in the rest of the paragraph that this phrase seems a little repetitive. Bg27 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reread our article and giving suggestions. Aggento10 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro

I read over your article and it was very informative and interesting. In your introduction I thought you kind of jumped around a bit and thought it should be reworded to flow better. All the information in the introduction is great I just think it could flow together better. Linde17 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over the article. I'm working on rewording the introduction so its easier to read. Thanks for the suggestion!--Kali615 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical and Veterinary Importance

You can combine these two sections because they are rather short, and condense it into a small two sentences of text so that they don't appear to be such small sections. Great article!Bandeh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

Great comment. I think the layout of the article looks much better, not so choppy and has a better flow. Thanks for taking the time to comment on our article. Aggento10 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Forensic Importance

It could be beneficial to readers and researchers if you would discuss the relevance of finding this species on a decomposing body. You could discuss what it would mean to have just this species present on a cadaver. Good job! Jklein08 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading our article and making suggestions. --Kali615 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

Good article, I just have one suggestion. I think in the Distribution section you should expand on the preferences of the fly that make it attracted to cosmopolitan areas if that is possible. Blhockey19 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read our article and for your suggestion. --Kali615 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but I still feel that there is not enough information in the distribution to have its own section. Distribution is very important and need to be mentioned, but it could be stated in some of the other sections. The rest of the article look very good. Ptshults (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I think your article looks really good! The biggest thing that bothered me was the huge space inbetween your description and life history sections. That is very easily fixed though! Another thing I noticed was that in the introduction, you say the word "fly" a lot. You could fix this easily also, if you just rephrase some of your sentences. Under the life history section you mention the phrase "common name" but never the common name itself, it may be beneficial to rewrite "latrine fly" just for clarification and ease. Also, you mention that the fly can be found in unclean areas, maybe put in some examples of unclean areas that the fly has been found in? You can probably make "cosmopolitan" a link. Also, I found the research section to be somewhat unclear and confusing. Overall, I can tell that this article was thoroughly researched and has had a lot of effort put into it. Good Job! amahajan17 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading our article and all your suggestions. I looked up cosmopolitan to see if it could be linked and it has it as a magazine and a drink but not in the sense we are using it. Thanks for your comments! --Kali615 (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I liked this article alot. The article was short and concise, easy to understand, and very informative. I would like to see a few more pictures, but that is because I am a visual person. Overall, great job! Klovel (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the article and for your suggestions. I'm glad you liked it. --Kali615 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good article! I have listed a couple of errors to fix in the article. In the introduction, change “the larvae of this fly have” to the larvae of this fly has. Change “that allow them to survive” to allows them to survive in the introduction. Sentence 2 in the description is a run-on. In the description put a comma between “species is straight” and “as compared to”. In the last sentence of forensic importance, put a comma between “flesh flies” and “when”. In the research paragraph put a comma between “under-developed country” and “like”. Charms18 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading our article and making comments. I changed the punctuation errors and we will take your other suggestions into consideration. --Kali615 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the huge gap between Description and Life History as well. It is an easy thing to fix! I noticed that there are also only 7 paragraphs in your article and we need to have 10. Perhaps you could add a section on behavior? I also noticed a simple spelling mistake in the "research" section-- "floatation" is now spelled "flotation" I think! Otherwise I think this is a great article! Nice job! Pmullins (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read our article. We will work on fixing the space and take your suggestions into consideration. --Kali615 (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some more suggestions

First off, great article, Y’all. Just some suggestions to help with flow, citations, etc.

Link to:

House fly(introduction)

Larvae(introduction)

Pupae(Life history)

-(Introduction)Check spelling on ”forensicallly”

-(Life history) Suggest changing “high nitrogenous” to “highly nitrogenous”.

-(introduction)(medical & veterinary importance) information regarding myiasis repeated among these sections.

-(forensic importance)Suggest change “…urine soaked…” to “…urine-soaked…”

-(research)Suggest changing “…under developed…” to “…underdeveloped…”Aemejia22 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the article and giving suggestions! --Kali615 (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)