Talk:Lutzomyia longipalpis

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.

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.

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): Rchiou. Peer reviewers: XuLily, Montana.sievert, Agandhi7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments

The article is well written, and includes some very interesting information from multiple sources. This fly has unique aspects that I think were well elucidated in this article. The concept of a species complex was well explained, and the process of recognizing L.longipalpis as one is clear in the article. I liked the decision to include a separate section for the interaction with chickens, as this is unique to the fly and also has important implications for pathology at the same time. I did not change much of the content, because I liked how it was written, but I did edit the ordering of the subheadings. In addition, I made a few grammar edits. The only semantic change was to do with the interpretation of the Macedo-Silva et al. article, from where I don’t think it can be generalised that humans are the most common source of bloodmeals for this fly. Agandhi7 (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article spans a good selection of topics regarding L. longipalpis. Disease carried by the species is well-covered and is one of the highlights of the article. Some additional topics that could be included and expanded on are parental care, a subsection for Females in the Sex Differences section, and Interactions with Humans beyond providing a blood food source for L. longipalpis. Overall, the article has clear prose, has references to other sources, covers broad topics, and takes on a neutral tone. The article was sparsely illustrated so I added some more Wikimedia Commons images. XuLily (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Life History

I added a section for Life History and included some information about larvae to complement a picture of larvae for this species. If anyone adds more information about the egg, larval, pupal, or adult stages, it could be useful to add the respective subheadings to the Life History section. XuLily (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edits

Hi Ryan! I went through your page and made edits to grammar and awkward sentence structure, deleted anything repetitive, fixed misspelled words, etc. I think you’re missing a citation for the last sentence of your introduction which is a very small fix, just add the citation for where you found that this fly seems to rely on domestic chickens. In the “diet section” I was wondering if you could add a definition or explanation of what an eclectic feeder is? There’s not a Wikipedia page for that term, but I don’t think it’s a common term, so it would be beneficial to include some suggestion of what eclectic feeders are or do. I think generally, but especially in your section “interactions with domestic chickens” you need to add citations or edit the way citations are added so as to be more clear where information is coming from. In this specific section it was confusing because you referenced the findings of one study without citing the study and then said other studies haven’t been able to support these findings. For the whole section you just referenced one source, so it’s unclear as to whether the information from experiments were taken from that source, or from the primary sources and are just not cited. Also in this section in the sub-header “theories of explanation” you don’t cite any source for the first paragraph, so that should be added. Overall, I thought your writing was really well done-it was clear and straightforward, sentences were concise, etc. I think the major thing that would improve this page is editing citations/citation placement within the text, so it’s easier to find where information came from and then find that information if desired. I also think if you could add sections on parental care and social behavior that would greatly add to your page. Those sections especially I think would be really interesting to consider in conjugation with the lek mating system. Montana.sievert (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hvmoolani (talk · contribs) 3 November 2019 I would like to thank the primary author of this article for taking in the comments of the editors and adding so much research and information on this species. I added information on the geographic distribution by further elaborating adding that the information about it primarily being present in Central and South America but has also been seen in Mexico. Despite the multitude of citations that are used in this article, there are many statements that are not cited. I went through and added citations to many of these statements. While there are not many pictures on the page, I believe that the image of the chicken running is not appropriate or significant to warrant a picture. Therefore, I deleted this image. I have also edited and rewritten many of the sentences to improve clarity in the diet, life history, and mating sections. I also hyperlinked about 35 terms like ovaries, parasite, and other scientific terms that are not commonly known. Despite these edits, this page is well written and researched.

I thank the primary editor of this article for contributing such a robust set of additional information and new sections as well as incorporating previously suggested changes. I did a thorough sweep of the article for grammatical and logical errors and corrected them accordingly. I think attention should be paid in the next round of edits to sentences lacking proper citations. I have changed all mentions of the "sand fly" to "sandfly" to reflect the more commonly used convention. I think that the mating section can be completed with the addition of a "Female" section to complement the "Male" one that is there. I also think the article would benefit from a detailed section on anatomy with "Male" and "Female" subsections as well as descriptions of the differences in anatomy/appearance between different life stages.

-RachelXinruHua (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the introduction paragraph to make it more concise and less wordy. I deleted a redundent sentence and also move a sentence to the Habitat section because it fit there better. I linked to specific terms that are not common knowledge like Visceral leishmanias, aphids, Leishmani parasites and corrals. I broke up a few run on sentences and made a few grammar corrections. Overall great and interecting article! I would focus most on improving citations and making sure they are in the correct places where it is obvious to the reader which reference came from which source. Keep up the good work! OstapKukhar (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some minor grammatical and stylistic changes. Additionally, I also titled the images in the body of the article more consistently in terms of punctuation and capitalization. -RachelXinruHua (talk) 6:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)