Talk:Cynomya cadaverina

Impressive

Your article is really impressive! I only have a few suggestions. When you have your inline citations, they come directly after the period with no space. I'd also go through some of your wording and see what you could take out. For example: "important in aiding in determining a PMI", when you could simply say "important in determining". The extra prepositions make the sentence structure awkward. Also, you should avoid phrases like "in no time", because it's really vague. I think you could also take out the summary on post mortem interval or myiasis, because you have a link to them. If people aren't sure what it is, they can go there and find out. It doesn't seem necessary here, you can just put how this particular species is important in determining PMI. Last thing, I'm not sure how the communicative behavior of these flies in clustering has anything to do with disease transmission. It doesn't seem to fit here. Other than that, I was really impressed!! It's a very good looking article and you did a good job. Dachshundcrazy (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing- an automatic thing on peer review for our article said to spell out millimeters and other distances! Hope that helps as well! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your suggestions and recommendations. I took them into consideration and edited our article to fix the in-line incitations as well as some of the wording. We appreciate all your help! KellyA09 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to expand your taxonomy section, it may be beneficial to talk about what makes a dipteran a dipteran, calliphoridae a calliphoridae and why your fly is different than the others in this family. Just a small sentence explaining would be helpful. Also, if you wanted to expand into another paragraph, Etymology is the study of word origins and can be made into a separate header and explain where the name came from in more detail, or what all the guy did who made up the word. These are just suggestions for expansion, your article looks great! Penn195 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. We will definitely take them into consideration. We appreciate everyone's help. KellyA09 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I read over your article and I agree it's impressive. I wanted to suggest some expansion over your disease section. It might be helpful to describe the anatomy of the fly as possibly being responsible for the fly being a mechanical vector. You might introduce the sponging nature of the fly when it eats or the possible transmission through particles transmitted by its legs. Just wanted to suggest an expansion on how the fly actually transmits the disease. Undercover agent (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Undercover agent

Thank you for your suggestion! We are looking into expanding it :) KellyA09 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading through your article I ran across three things that could probably be edited. The first was in the description section. I know this is nit picky, but you don't need to restate the family of your fly. It's redundant when you do, especially since you have already mentioned it in one of the preceding paragraphs. Just something to consider. Also, under the description of the fly, it may be a good idea to link the word "parafacial." I honestly have no idea what this means and would love to be able to read more about it. Finally, you mentioned that this fly is a cool-weather fly. Is it possible to state the temperature ranges at which this fly thrives? Overall, great article! SjLangsta (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am not removing the second Calliphoridae because I think it's important to distinguish it from saying Diptera or something else. I'm not stating that it is in the family again just that these are the common characteristics that it gets from being a member of that family. Second, I tried to link to parafacial but there is not a wikipedia page on this topic. Also, I could not find any articles or any information from books that gave a temperature range for this fly. If I had I would have included it. Again thank you for your suggestions. KellyA09 (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good work. Your forensic and medical section was very well explained. I only suggest some minor edits. First, the headers for each section of your atricle should only have the first letter of the first word capitalized, everything else should be lowercase. For example, Future Research should be Future research. The word millimeters in your description section is misspelled, as it says milimeters. And finally, I think adding more links to categories at the bottom of the page would be beneficial to tie your page to others such as Diptera or forensic entomology. Great job. Aggento10 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! I didn't even notice the millimeters mistake and have fixed the headers. We appreciate it! KellyA09 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that you all did a very good job in writing this article. I think that each section presented was thoroughly covered and expanded upon. My main concern is that there are no pictures provided for a quick reference. Even if you couldn't get around copyright rules/taking a picture yourself, I think maybe a link to an external website or source if at all possible would be nice. I also think that your 'Taxonomy' section could be incorporated into the intro paragraph. Although it provides relevant background information, I don't feel that it is necessarily substantial enough to stand on its own. Like I said before, I think that you all did a very good job. Paulette10 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations. I am not going to incorporate taxonomy into the intro because I actually do feel that it's strong enough alone and helps it stand out better being where it is. Also, we had a great picture but it was removed even though we had permission. That being said, I will look into to adding some links to pictures. Thank you again! KellyA09 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys have done a very thorough job with your article, but I have just a couple of minor suggestions. In your introduction when you use the phrase "as well as" there needs to be a comma before the first as. In the first sentence of your description paragraph, there needs to be a comma between family and Calliphoridae. In your myiasis and maggot therapy section, there is nothing about the maggot therapy that relates back to C. cadaverina. It would be better if you could somehow relate it to C. cadaverina. The article is very informative and interesting. Great article! Deepa.lalu (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I have fixed some of the mistakes and am looking into your other suggestions. We appreciate it! KellyA09 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here goes. Under Dscription, instead of "These characteristics include their...", "These characteristics include metallic coloring, bristles on the meron and plumose aista" would sound better. After this sentence, I think "Along with a shiny, metallic abdomen, this species has a dark blue or black thorax...," would improve flow. Then remove "Along with these characteristics" in the next sentence. Under Lifecycle and develepment, in the third sentence you may want to change "...below a certain temperature it can..." to "...below a certain temperature range it can..." Also maybe "threshold temperatures" should be specifically included since you're on that track, or maybe include a link. Then, you can combine the last two sentences to, "Generally, the warmer it is, the faster the lifecycle will go; the colder it is, the slower the lifecycle will go." Also, in the next paragraph, add "approximately" to the times spent in the second and third larval instars. Right now it sounds as if the first time is an estimation and then a definite time is known for the remaining two. Under Postmortem interval estimation, the ending for sentence three can be improved by changing it to "...question an estimation of the PMI can be obtained." Also, I think that maggot therapy may actually be considered myiasis. It' just controlled and on purpose. I don't know though. Finally, if you put "In recent years and the present, there have been numerous..." under Mitochondrial DNA analysis, you can remove the last sentence which hinders the flow. Good luck! G16member (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am looking into these suggestions. KellyA09 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is very well written and informative. I would suggest adding references in the introduction as this is important to avoid being charged with plagiarism. Also, your text would be greatly supported with a picture. I would suggest going here for help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload RodeoAggie (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I actually wrote the intro in all my own words with no help from any book or journal so there's nothing to reference to. Also, we did have a picture but it was removed. Thanks again. KellyA09 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes

Your article is great and very in depth. Therefore you should hyperlink the more infamilar words that readers might question about. In the disease portion of your article, you should hyperlink FDA, and pathogens. I also advise combining the taxonomy section with the introduction portion. This information is crucial for readers to fathom. Pictures are also highly encouraged especially in the life cycle and development, i'm sure you could find plenty to fulfill the article. In general, it's a decent research effort. Mliu715 (talk)

We actually did have a picture but it was removed. I'll look into getting another one and I will change those links! Thank you! KellyA09 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article is very well researched and written. It flows with very few, if any, stops or changes. You obviously kept up with the discussion page very well, making the necessary edits. I'm impressed by your page! I did see a few things, all minor-- like a comma here or a link there. In the very first sentence of the intro, the wording seems a bit odd. Maybe take out the comma? In Description, "dorsum" can be internally linked. In Life cycle, Imago should be added and linked. A suggestion for the sentence could be "...: egg, larva, pupa, and Imago, or adult.". Another sentence is "During molt, the larvae shed its outer layer"-- perhaps adding will before shed will make this flow better, as well. I like how PMI had a whole section dedicated to just that topic. And the Mitochondrial DNA section is also very impressive--very well researched! Finally, under Disease transmission, you can internally link pathogens. Like I said, all these very minute things to change. You've done really well on this project-- and thanks for the external links section!! 66.76.81.62 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This comment made me smile so much. Thank you! I will change the things that need to be fixed! KellyA09 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cynomya cadaverina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706181728/http://www.css.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/cprc/tr/tr-2005-06.pdf to http://www.css.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/cprc/tr/tr-2005-06.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)