Talk:Fannia scalaris: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:19, 15 April 2009

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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 genus present on a cadaver. Good job! Jklein08 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 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![[User:Bandeh|Bandeh]] ([[User talk:Bandeh|talk]])  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 02:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== 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 genus present on a cadaver. Good job!  [[User:Jklein08|Jklein08]] ([[User talk:Jklein08|talk]]) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)