Jump to content

Talk:Lucilia thatuna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SjLangsta (talk | contribs) at 15:58, 15 April 2009 (→‎Minor Edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion

Welcome to our page, please leave some constructive feedback for us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandeh (talk • contribs) 15:11, March 21, 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Anatomy section starts with "L. thatuna belongs to the family Calliphoridae, the species of which are also known as blowflies." That doesn't seem to belong there because you have "Lucilia thatuna belongs to the family Calliphoridae, the species of which commonly referred to as blowflies, and the genus Lucilia." as your very first sentence in the first paragraph. Also, I think it could be helpful to mention their size relative to other species in Lucilia. Other than that, I liked the organization and the information on this project. Good job and good luck.Heedeok (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see how that doesn't exactly fit! I'll edit it and see how it looks! Thank you for your ideas!

SjLangsta (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

  • In your synonym section of your taxobox, the name of the species should be italicized and i don't think there should be an extra (') at the end.
  • Okay, so you also made other simple minor mistakes that many others did. I'm tired of typing so I'll just refer you to the discussion page of other sites that i posted what these problems are: Talk:Lucilia cuprina

--Hieu87 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Hieu87[reply]

  • Thank you for the editing tips! We will change everything we can!

SjLangsta (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • you might want to switch out the in-line citations and use "less than" ref "greater than" to cite the sources instead. It's a lot easier on the eyes. Also the myiasis section of the page is a bit redundant. Pyrothansia (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see how our myiasis section is a bit redundant. We will take a look at it and see what we can change. Thank you!

SjLangsta (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the location section you might want to explain how the elevation effects your insect's life cycle or survivability. In other words, does the life cycle slow down as elevation increases or vise versa. You could throw this discussion into the Forensic importance section as well. Otherwise, GOOD JOB FOLKS!Robertsonza7 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding how elevation affects the life cycle of our researched insect would definitely be great to discuss, however, because Lucilia thatuna is a very rare species, there is not any information that we have found regarding this topic. Thank you for the suggestion; let us know if there is anything more we could add! SjLangsta (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article had many interesting facts and I could tell that effort was put into researching. However, it seems like many of the sentences in the different paragraphs can be combined. Without combining the sentences, it seems like you are just trying to take up space with simple sentences and words with no significance to the information being presented. I went ahead and edited a couple of sentences in the Forensic Importance section making it flow a little better. Other than that I think you all did a great job! RxAggie246 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for editing for us! We appreciate the changes!

SjLangsta (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a couple things while reading through your article. In the Life cycle and development section, I think the paragraph would flow a little better if you added a "that" to make the sentence "it is theorized that females...." Also, there are italics missing for Lucilia cuprina (last two words of Forensic importance) and twice for L. thatuna in the Current research section). It is a very good article overall! --Cecimontes (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very infomative and interesting but I have a few suggestions. I think it would be easier to refer to the sources if you would link the information to the reference section instead of just having the sources in parentheses. Also, the first sentence in the introduction "...the species of which commonly referred to as blowflies.." might sound better as "...the species of which is commonly referred to as blowflies..". In the myiasis section you might want to take the word "cause" out of "These flies cause do not utilize living organisms to lay their eggs." Other than that this is a great article! --Kali615 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions! I went ahead and made those changes! SjLangsta (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good information! "Lucilia thatuna belongs to the family Calliphoridae, the species of which commonly referred to as blowflies, and the genus Lucilia." might sound better as " the speices most commonly referred to as the blowfly." Also it would be helpful to the reader to link some of the following words; frons, postacrostichal setae, and flaellomere. In life cycles and development adding "that" after "theorized" would make the sentence flow more smoothly. It would also be useful to link the references within the article, otherwise great job! Cpetey08 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I went ahead and changed the sentence structure you suggested the change in. Good idea! The only word I linked was 'frons' because the other two do not have pages on them yet. And I added 'that!' Thank you for your ideas! SjLangsta (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucilia_thatuna&oldid=284015925"