Lucilia cuprina received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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

This article is rated B-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.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Lucilia cuprina is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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.

Our Project

Hey this is a wikipedia site that was posted for a school project. We encourage your comments, so please leave any criticisms or complements as you see fit. Thanks
Klovel (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The article was very well written. The only suggestion I have concerns the formatting of the article. Some of the sections, particularly the Ways to Control Infestation, could be broken down to either smaller sections or paragraphs. This way, it can be easily read by users and be less overwhelming. But other than that, the article had a lot of information. Nrey2009 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the critique and the suggestion of seperating the one paragraph into two. The necessary changes will be made! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra.anzaldua (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

I added a few links and fixed a few red links. Hope this helps! --Jdarnell (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the additions. They greatly improved our project and were very much appreciated! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics section

I liked the amount of information and research links- I can definitely tell that your group did a lot of work on this. The only problem I see is that in some parts the article doesn't read like an encyclopedia, specificaly in the Demographics section "Their common name(the Australian Sheep Blowfly) can be misleading when interpreting their location, but don’t be deceived, Australia" the don't be deceived part seems a little unpolished. But everything else was great! Entoproject30 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! I made a change to the sentence.Cpetey08 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.122.166 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holometabolous

In the Stages of Life section I think the homometabolous development should be changed to holometabolous development. I agree with what Entoproject30 said about that sentence seeming more fit for a more informal paper. I noticed that as I was reading through as well. Other than that the article is well done! Agg4Lfe (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for catching that mistake! it was corrected. Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy

The first sentence of the anatomy section doesn’t make sense. Change “along with” to “and reddish eyes”. The way it is currently written implies that the metallic coloring is on the reddish eyes. Change because of this to due to this. The sentence talking about the wings in the anatomy section is kind of a repeat of the sentence in the introduction. Try and make the sentence in the anatomy section have a new piece of information, or make the introduction sentence more condensed. In the habitats/diet section add a comma after “L. cuprina can fly up to ten miles looking for food”. In the stages of life section change the ; to a : when listing the stages of life. The sentence,” there they lay their eggs” doesn’t give the context of where. Change “inside a casing” to inside the casing. In the stages of life section twenty one should be twenty-one. More nutrients should be changed to better nutrition, or better nutrients. There are quite a few run on sentences. In the effects on sheep in the first sentence add a comma after blowfly strike. I don’t think there needs to be a comma between the maggots of L. cuprina and rapidly grow. In the prevention section, change “from the breech are” to “from the breech area” and add a comma after area. Reword the sentence, “mulesing currently is an animal husbandry”. In the similar species paragraph add a comma between sister species and Lecillia sericata. Good research and information! Good article, just a few grammatical errors that need to be fixed! Charms18 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Charms18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charms18 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the grammatical corrections. They were fixed! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though you can simply use the subheading Physical Characteristics instead of Anatomy. Anatomy seems too expansive. Also, it wouldn't hurt to shorten the introductory paragraphs. You can move some of that information to the body. It's a bit longwinded, but still great! Good work guys! Nanayaagh (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, however, I do no think we can change our outline seeing it was alreayd approved. Thanks anyway! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

In the taxonomy section, there should be a non-breaking space after a measurement and an en-dash between numbers. Consult this page to see exactly how you should do this.Many instances of Lucilia cuprina could be shortened to L. cuprina; in general use the full name in the first occurrence in a new section, then the short form after that."Habitats/Diet", "Stages of Life", "Effects on Sheep", "Ways to Control Infestation", "Forensic Importance", and "Ongoing Research" section header-- only the first word of section headers should be capitalized (unless there's a name involved).

--Hieu87 (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Hieu87[reply]

Thank you very much for your critiques! Almost all of the suggested changes have been made. Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over the other users statements about what you guys should change and it looks like you guys have cleared that up. The first paragraph has a choppy transition going from discussion of the wings, to description, then to noting the sheep strike. It could flow a little bit better. Overall, you guys did a wonderful job and everything looks good. Good job! Edbe (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I revised the intro so it hopefully will 'flow better.' Thank you again! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Changes

First off, I think this is really a very well written article! There are just some minor changes I would suggest. The lead may be a bit too wordy. Try using more concise words like "since" instead of "being that."

You could also add more links through out the article (for example, to the words "halteres" and "gyroscopes" in the lead, the word "forensic," and "maggots" or the word "pyrethroids" in the prevention section).

I think there may be too much detail about the sister species in your "similar species" section. I feel as though that should just be linked to the article for the similar fly. The similar species should be mentioned but only for the physical characteristics dealing with identification. That whole section seems to stray away from the actual topic of your article.

In the ongoing research section, there is no reference about "RAPD" and it seems as though there should be.

Also, I have been told that the conclusion section is no longer in protocol for wikipedia, and therefore should be combined with your "ongoing research" section. amahajan17 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Good Luck![reply]

Thank you so much for the critique. The necessary changes have been made to the lead and to the other sections mentioned. We really appreciaite your input! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

This is a very well written and informative article. This page does a very good job of explaining where it gets its common name from. The only corrections I see is that there is no reference for L. illustris and insect growth regulators. Great work though it is obvious you put the time and effort needed into this page. Slaytwebeling (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to the suggestion about referencing L.illustris and insect growth regulators. The link was made for L. illustris, however there is no linking page for insect growth regulators. There is however a page related to growth regulators that discusses plant hormones, however I thought that went beyond the scope of our topic. Thank you again for the input! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

You guys have a great page and it is full of information!! Great job guys! Here are a few suggestions...Under the habitats/diet section, you need to put commas in your compound sentences. There are no references in this whole section..where did you get your information? Also, the section is very brief, so maybe try elaborating the section. In the similar species section, two sentences in a row begin with "They both" and "They are both", maybe you should reword one. Also, the sentence starting wtih "They are both" is a little rough. The section on prevention and effects on sheep was great! Easy to read and enjoyable! Overall, great job! (Melissasimons (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thank You Melissasimons. Your comments on the similiar species section was very helpful. You caught some mistakes I had over looked. I have made some changes. Thank you again (fjessie05)--Fjessie05 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Suggestion

Overall the article is great! One quick suggestion would be to offer temperatures in Celsius along with Fahrenheit in order to make the article more "Europe friendly." Other than that, good job!--Karajean88 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I included the degrees in Celsius in parenthesis for extra clarification. Thanks again! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

This is a well written article with a lot of useful information. I have made a couple tiny adjustments to your page regarding the links. While I was reading along there were a couple terms I did not recognize. I have provided links for them so that future readers will have the liberty to follow up to the link. rmal21 (rmal21) 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the edits. We really appreciate your assistance and contribution to the article! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life Cycle

Your life cycle paragraph contains some good information. It appears as though you may not have been able to gather as much research and information about this particular species, which is understandable, but because of that the life cycle paragrpah doesn't really contain enough concrete facts. It may help to generalize more and maybe talk about Diptera's life cycle with more concrete facts about that then just writing that the pupa stage is for changing of a rice-like larva into an egg. Good article though!Wggrant (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the critique. Your suggestions will be taken into consideration, and changes will be made if see fit. Thanks again. Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<SteinSydney>Wiki12Sept ==Stages of Life section== Overall I think the writing is very informative! I would like to see some sources attached to the stages of life section, however. The information seems solid, so give yourself and your sources some credit! sydney.stein7 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Sydney.stein7 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral ecology comment

One strength of this article is that it has a forensic importance. This is a strength because this is a type of section that a reader will look for because it forms the connection between the fly and humans. One interesting thing I learned was that it has economic importance. SInce the fly can cause death in sheep, it causes huge monetary loss to farmers. This article could benefit from a further reading section because this could link to the economic losses of the sheep and the real world damage.This article should also have a current and further research, especially in relation to its harm in sheep.A taxonomy section, especially with a cladogram, will give readers a better understanding of how it is related to other flies better than the similar species section. This article has start-class importance which I do not agree with because it has a decent amount of details and information. This article also has low-importance which I think it should move up in importance because it has caused such economic loss. Most of the talk section is from 2009, so it should be updated. Asivamohan (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)asivamohan[reply]