Talk:Cynomya mortuorum

This article is rated Start-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.

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

Untitled

The page is well written, and flows smoothly, but I suggest adding an identification section. Also, making three sections in the lifecycle section. Pyrothansia (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback. Did you mean three subheadings as in egg, larvae, and adult? Sorry, this is probably an obvious answer, but I just wanted to clarify. Mereharton (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we will get started on that identification section as soon as possible. Mereharton (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evalutaion

This article is good. I feel like I am now more familiar with this species. There are a few words that I think could have been linked to there definitions because some might not be familiar with them. The words were mainly in the first paragraph of the General Characteristics and Lifecycle section. I think the words dorsal, anterior, and posterior could all be linked to a page that shows exactly where these sides are. Maybe yall could even use the slides from class that showed all the sides of the human. I thought the word chorion found in this same section could be linked to a website that shows what the chorion is. I especially like that sections about Uses in Forensic Entomology and Forensic Case studies. Good job on this article. Ac22 (Ac22) 15:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks those are really good ideas, and we will work on making some of those words linked to other pages this week.Kctaylor (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kctaylor (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was very informative, and decently broad in scope. I thought that the Forensic case studies and the information on Current research added a lot. A couple of suggestions: first of all, this entire article needs to be proofread. There are spelling errors scattered throughout. "Life cycle," for example, was combined into one word in the header and throughout that section. There are also some grammatical and punctuation errors that won't be too hard to catch if y'all read through your article again. Your headers (someone corrected my article on this) should only have the first letter capitalized. I also saw that "Calliphoridae" was linked to several times throughout the article. Only the first incidence of the word should be a link. I agree with a previous reviewer that there are quite a few other words within your article that could link to other Wikipedia articles--that will really enhance it, in my opinion! Content wise, the only suggestion I have is to include more identifying characteristics of the adult, anything it's commonly confused with, etc. Good luck, and again, nice job! :) Aggie2011nerd (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. We are currently in the process of adding an identification section. Also, we will get to fixing those grammatical and spelling errors. Thanks again! Mereharton (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is very informative and after reading it I have a very thorough understanding of this particular species. I do think that adding a picture or two would help if that is at all possible. There were also a couple words that I thought could be linked to other pages, such as “forensic” and “carrion.” I really like how the life cycle information was divided into the three different stages. I think that makes it easy to follow and understand. As far as content goes, I think that adding some form of “identification” or “general appearance” would really help. The forensic importance and research sections were really detailed and I thought they added a lot! Good job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karalin11 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your ideas! We were unable to find any Wikimedia pictures that looked different than the one shown, and we felt the others would be repetitive. However, we are in the process of adding an identification section, and many words have now been linked to other pages. Thanks for reading our article! Mereharton (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. You guys wrote a very good article that is very indepth. Your ecology section was very informative on where these flies are found. I do believe that it would be helpful if you added more links throughout sections of the paper, especially to the General characteristics section to words like carrion, chorion, pupae, larvae, vole, and myiasis. I would also add more categories to the bottom or your aticle such as diptera, flies, forensic entomology, or something of that sort just to connect your page with others. I believe the links will be useful to the common reader who just strolls across your article and may not know what some of these words mean and how they relate. In the ecology section, in the sentence "C. mortuorum has not been shown to cause myiasis," C. mortuorum needs to be italicized. Great work on the whole. Aggento10 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input! We are working on linking more words currently, but we will also work on linking more things to our page. Thanks for pointing out that scientific name error. Mereharton (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a fine piece of work! Great information provided in an efficient and clear way. Just a few minor suggestions. First, the sentence It lays its eggs on carrion, the location for larvae development. could use a little work and expansion on the idea. Try saying something like "It lays it's eggs on carrion to provide facility for larval development." Add that they lay their eggs specifically in natural body orifices and open wounds to expand slightly on the sentence. Second, the sentence As most blow flies, or members of the Calliphoridae family, Cynomya mortuorum has a life cycle that includes an egg stage, three larval instars, and a pupal form before becoming an adult. could mention that the pupal stage finally goes to the sexually mature adult stage (or imago). Add a separate category for the imago and put a link to it just to remind quick-glancing readers that there is another stage in the life cycle beyond pupal. Finally, the pupal section is a tad small. If there is any other information that could go under it, such as darkening of the pupae as it ages or how long it stays in that stage (or how long any other stage in the life cycle lasts for that matter ), it would be welcome to add a little more meat to that section. Great article overall. Be proud! Jkski23 (Jkski23) 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your suggestions, we are currently working on sentence structure and will consider your input. The sentence about the stages does include that it follows through to the adult stage but we might add the imago information. Your input is under consideration, Thanks Kctaylor (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was really well written and very informative. My only two critiques are in the last two sentences of the very first paragraph you end a sentence with due to and then begin the next sentence with due to which is a little redundant. Also, in the first sentence in the Larvae section the "although" seemed kind of awkward. You could perhaps change this to and. These are just suggestions. You guys did a great job! Ayoussef17 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. We will work on the sentence flow at the end of the first paragraph and in the larval section. Kctaylor (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! I really enjoyed the section about the forensic case studies. Also, the general characteristics and life cycle section covered the details very well and clearly. A few recommendations would be to make a link to the post mortem interval wikipedia page. Another suggestion that I believe would better your page would be to rephrase the sentence "The only common name in English is the occasionally used "fly of the dead" (Totenfliege in German" to "The only common name in English is occasionally referred to as "fly of the dead" (Totenfliege in German)." This small change seems to make the phrase flow better. All in all, the article is very informative. Amanda.turchi (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions! We will look at rephrasing that sentence, and at linking that page. Mereharton (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I REALLY like this article! There is so much information it is just delightful, and there is also a good bit of interesting knowledge nuggets that I can share with my peers. good work on the research guys. jhud12 (talk) 010:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your compliments! They are greatly appreciated. Mereharton (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well written article. I especially like how you cited specific forensic cases where the fly was used. The only thing I might suggest is combining the Forensic Case paragraph with the Current Research paragraph. I liked the flow of the article very much. Zotkot14 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I think we are going to leave the two paragraphs separate because the Forensic Case study has already happened, and the Current Research is ongoing. Also, if someone is skimming the article for current research it is easier to find this way. Thank you though! Mereharton (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

minor edits/suggestions

First, very well written article! The fluidity of the writing made this an easy, interesting read. I only have a couple minor editting suggestions that might improve it a bit. First, as I was reading I noticed that the full name, Cynomya mortuorum, was used throughout the article. Once the name has been mentioned in a paragraph, from there on out you can abbreviate it as C. mortuorum. This just adds to the overall appeal -- just an idea. Then, in the "Uses in forensic entomology" section the first sentence could be revised. Instead of saying, "The use of Cynomya mortuorum in the judicial system is most often applied to the medicocriminal area of forensic entomology," why don't you reword it to say, "The use of Cynomya mortuorum in the judicial system is most commonly applied to the medicocriminal branch of forensic entomology." These are just a few ideas, other than that it was great work! Hope this helps! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the input. We will definitely look into abbreviating the name so as to allow for more fluidity. We will also address the sentence you suggested to us. thanks again Undercover agent (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article is very informative and useful. I personally really enjoyed the introduction section because it perfectly summed up the what the whole article was going to cover. One suggestion I have deals with the pupae section. This section is very brief so I would suggest adding some more description to it. However, I realize this might be hard if there is limited information on this topic. I know this is super picky, but in the ecology section the word carcasses is repeated often so some rephrasing should maybe occur there. Overall this is a great article! Good job! --Kaleelkirk (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. There was not a lot of information describing the pupae, which is why that section is so brief. However, we will look at the ecology section. Thanks again! Mereharton (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through a few of the comments and you've made the recommended changes, including the abbreviation of the name. Overall, the quality of the article is impressive. There was obviously a lot of research put into this report. I especially enjoyed the addition of the German term in the intro :) On that, forensic entomology can be linked to its wikipedia page. Under General characteristics, "blowfly" can be linked, as well as "instars" (which I think was linked further down the page, though I'm not sure), and holometabolous can be linked to the "holometabolism" wikipedia page. The addition of Imago may seem small, but it is a very important piece of information to include and I'm glad you have it. I also want to say that I like that you included a case study on your page. It accurately represents the important link between instar development and PMI estimations. Very good work. Kcatron (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your input! We will get to linking those words. Mereharton (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]