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.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Diptera B‑class 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
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Peer review

Untitled

I edited the overview/introduction section to be shorter and more concise. It can be confusing to have many short paragraphs in the beginning. I also made grammatical edits, and hyperlinked concepts such as pheromone, steroid, mutagen and carcinogen, which may not be familiar to all readers. I also added a sentence on the relationship between D. nigrospiracula and D. mettleri. This was a clear and concise article.Hannahwhite97 (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some formatting of paragraphs because some paragraphs were very short but still followed the previous paragraph’s topic, so I combined some of them. I also added hyperlinks to details, like the cactus species. I also suggested that additional citations be put in the second paragraph of the mating section, because it’s not clear that this was directly from the reference. I added a newing sub-heading under enemies. Also, the 2nd paragraph of “Effects of parasitism…” was a bit confusing in that it wasn’t clear which males and females it was referring to. Y.shiuan (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A first look at the article shows visual flow and that the information has been broken down into more-accessible, brief, sections. The page features an adequate taxobox and a content box that outlines the categories in the article. Further, the writer has hyperlinked necessary words that may help the reader better comprehend the information provided in the article.

The lead section is short and well-written, however, I have broken down the single paragraph into three to make the information appear less dense. The writer has done a phenomenal job in adding examples of the species of flies D. nigrospiracula is associated with.

I have removed unnecessary wording throughout the article to make information less wordy and more succinct. The writer has done a phenomenal job in summarizing information extracted from the multitude of references used, and no signs of plagiarism are apparent. Further, the article has only referenced reliable sources, and the studies identified are substantial.

Under the “Home Range” category, I have hyperlinked gigantine and have removed , “Unlike the other 4 Drosophila species, D. nigrospiracula can breed on either cardón or saguaro cacti.”. The proceeding information is not accurate because other species (ie. D. metlerri is also capable of breeding on these two species of cacti. I have also removed modifiers such as “things such as” from the article in order to make the article more parallel and less colloquial.

Under the “Enemies” category, I have moved the reference to the end of the paragraph to show that the same reference contains all of the information found within that section.

Overall, the writer has done an exemplary job in synthesizing dense and complex information from the references he chose. Not only did he not simply reword extracted information, but he also whittled down his information into extremely accessible and short pieces of text. Only minor grammatical edits have been made, and the writer uses language devoid of uselessly complex words. Images have been added to the page, and these images are pertinent to the article. The images have been explained using a caption as well. All in all, the article shows special care to detail and even creates a story that can be attached to this fly species. The article is an excellent start and provides a framework for great expansion in years to come. For edits made by this user, please visit the View history page (User: JillianShah). Jillian Shah (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review (3)

The user has done an exceptional job this semester on his fly pages, and this fly species is an example of the amount of care the user put into making sure his article was of professional quality. Both of his articles use the most concise, economical, and comprehensible wording and language of all the articles i have looked at. This ia an accomplishment worth note because of the difficulty in whittling down complex and verbose research information into language that the common Wikipedia user can understand. A few areas of suggestion that may help this user reach good article standing include adding more pictures and adding more information about the genetic differences between this fly and other Desert Drosopholids. The fly may not have an upregulation in a target gene from the P450 system that limits its ability to nest in soil near rotting cacti. This is different from other Desert Drosopholids, like D. mettleri, and adding this information could also help explain evolutionary divergences in this fly species from others. Furthermore, the user may want to add more information to the heading section of his article as it can be a bit more comprehensive of the article as a whole. A change I have made to this page includes adding a section on this gene system in order to further develop the article. I have added the following information to the article:

---This species is behaviorally most common to Drosophila mettleri. A major difference between these two fly species, however, that serves to limit the amount of competition between them in nesting site selection is more genetically than behaviorally explained. D. mettleri contains an upregulation in the CYP28A1 gene in the P450 gene family. Upregulation in this gene enables D. mettleri to breed in both the toxic soil surrounding rotting cacti and on the tissues of rotting cacti patches. D. nigrospiracula, however, lacks this upregulated gene and can only nest on the tissues of rotting cacti patches. This particular genetic difference enables both species of Desert Drosopholids to use the same host cacti in the same geographic region without competitive pressures.

Overall, the user has done a phenomenal job on this fly and the information is both accurate and accessible. The article, with a few minor changes, has immense potential of reaching good article status, and the user's work is an example of what a proper Wikipedia article should look like! Jillian Shah (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the information in the article was well researched and interesting, and I liked that it covered a wide range of topics equally. I did notice a lot of scientific language being used like "cytochrome p450" or "alleochemicals" that lacked Wiki Links so I added these, just make sure if you update or add more information to be mindful of explaining terms that are not common knowledge. Adding images of the fly and other items related to the content of this page would be a beneficial change. Montana.sievert (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very well written article! I would suggest adding additional photographs of the fly itself, as those would enhance the reader's experience. If there are no photographs of the exact fly species, you could try finding pictures of closely related flies within the same genus, and note that it is a closely related species. Additionally, a description of the type of male-male competition would be informative to the reader, and would improve the mating section. JustinLevin (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eengermann. Peer reviewers: Jillian Shah, Hannahwhite97, Y.shiuan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]