Talk:Stalk-eyed fly

Diopsid image

Here's a really nice image I found on Commons if someone knows an appropriate article to use it for. — BrianSmithson 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nice picture. Unfortunately, there are no articles in wikipedia at all below the level of Diopsid; even if there were, we need a better identification. You may ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for that. Meanwhile, I've found a place to use it on Diopsoidea. Eugene van der Pijll 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sphyrocephala

The article by L. Papp, M. Földvári & P. Paulovics (1997) in footnote 3 may be correctly quoted, but the composite word “sphyracephala” is wrong; it has to be sphyrocephala. The scientific name of this “hammerhead”, cf. Greek σφῦρ|α [spʰȳr-] + κεφαλ|ή [kepʰal-], results from a combination of the main chunks of these words and --

a) the insertion of a buffer element -o- in between, and

b) the addition of another -o as a neuter inflectional morpheme.

Consequently, we get σφυροκέφαλο [spʰȳroképʰalo], a word which necessarily is furnished with an -α in plural. In Latin the name would be sphyrocephala.

The entomologists should perhaps ask a linguist before they go public with their new species…

A detail ? Well, this hammerhead article is replete with interesting details. Should a linguist renounce the same pleasure of diving into the nitty-gritty of how the entomologists account for their research ?

I have now corrected two instances of “sphyracephala” and one of “sphryacephala”[sic]. The one belonging to the article should remain morphologically wheelbroken. We can’t correct what is already printed, but we could do better next time. Hirpex (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

While Sphyrocephala may be linguistically correct, Sphyracephala is the established spelling of this genus in the scientific literature e.g. Sphyracephala beccari. Examples from the literature include: "A cladistic analysis of Diopsidae (Diptera) based on morphological and DNA sequence data" and On the egg morphology and phylogenetic relationships of Diopsidae (Diptera: Schizophora). I have amended the one instance, and now Sphyracephala links to the existing Wikipedia article on this genus. Just to be nonsensical, Prosphyrocephala keeps its o based on the existing literature (Scientistchic (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

Recent revision

I have added a Behavior Section, under which I have created a Vision section and a Mating section. I have also heavily revised the Sexual Selection section to more accurately reflect what is known. I also add a considerable number of sources to strengthen the article as a whole. and rearranged the photos. I also remove the Research section, as if was unnecessary, poorly referenced and receptive. Also the good information in this section was placed in context in the other sections and elaborated upon.

--Cobiorower (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC) cobiorower

This article is well written and provides a lot of interesting information, especially with the Wilkinson and Reillo experiments. What Cobiorower did with organization was a good idea. You could consider adding more sub-sections to the "Sexual Selection" part to make the large block of text less intimidating and more clear. Good job. Njoymusic2 (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought the information about the sexual selection experiments was very interesting. I feel like the article may be better suited as a wikipedia entry if the specific details of the experiment were excluded and the article focused on the conclusions. In other words, taking the names of the researchers and their methodology out. If the experiments themselves are particularly influential, they should probably have their own sub-headings (which I'm planning on addint) Gabriel.hassler (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you man, this article is very good. I like the inclusion of experiments to bring in new elements of doubt and uncertainty. Whereas encyclopedic entries tend to be more on the gritty factual side, your mention of the sexual selection experiments for this species provides a deeper insight not only into the knowledge, but the foundation and origin of the information. The headings and style are very good, and flow well together. I generally had no difficulty in reading the passages as they were clear and not passive in delivery. TKYung (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stalk-eyed fly/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Should have comments up within a couple of days. Sasata (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added some comments based on a quick read-through. There's more to discuss, but these will get us started. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• some copyediting is needed, e.g.

"ability of the males, , shortly after"

done

"contains members with a specific and unique, their"

done

• there shouldn't be a space between punctuation and the citation, not any spaces between consecutive citations

done

• the two left-aligned images are pushing subheaders in, and would be better placed on the right

done

• the lead should serve as a summary, and not contain information not present in the article (see WP:LEAD) About half of what's there currently should be moved to a separate section "Habitat and distribution". The final sentence should be moved to the Taxonomy section.

Working on this.GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

done

• is there enough literature to warrant a section about fossil taxa and evolution?

there is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobiorower (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• generally, only the first word of heading and subheadings should be capitalized

done

• the taxonomy section should indicate who named the family, and in what year. Have there been any phylogenetic studies that indicate the relationships of the family to others in the Diptera/Cyclorrapha? Some of the information currently in this section should go elsewhere, like distribution.

done

• "except the African genus Centrioncus Speiser." Genera are a single name; is the second word an authority? If so, it shouldn't be italicized.

done

• jargon should either be defined, especially if they are redlinked with no easy way for the reader to find out what they mean. Examples: laterotergite, postnotum

done

• there's too much detail given about specific experiments, and who performed them. These should be summarized to reflect the fact that this article is an overview of the entire family.

done

• to meet the GA criterion of broadness, the article should list all of the genera in the family, and give a short summary of each (characteristic features, # of species within, distribution, and perhaps basic taxonomy like who circumscribed it and in what year).

done

• I've added several citation needed tags throughout.

done

• a TV show is not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia article, please replace

done

• some of the book sources are missing page numbers, these should be included to help me (and other readers) verify the information

done

• in the lead, link morphology, sexual selection, handicap principle

done

• include the family authority and type genus in the taxobox
• "first described by Dr. John Fothergill" Wikipedia typically doesn't include titles; link Fothergill

done

• the article says the family is in suborder Cyclorrapha, while the taxobox says Brachycera

done

• a complete species list is not appropriate for a family-level article. I'd recommend making stubs for the genera, then the species lists can be moved there. Alternatively, you could create a page List of Stalk-eyed flies and copy/paste the list into there (with an appropriate source). For this article, a summary of each genus would be better: when & who described the genus, how many species does it have, what are the characteristics of that genus (briefly).

done; made a stub page, but could not find information on each genus.

• "There are several hundred species in the family" but earlier, the article says there are "some 150 described species"?

done

• Prosphyrocephala should be listed as well in the taxobox (with a dagger to denote its extinct status) & genus list
• "with variably produced transverse eye stalks" what does variably produced mean?

done

• link compound eye, conspecifics, alleles

done

• there's too much detail in the first paragraph of sexual selection experiments about how the experiments were performed, try to summarize

done

• what is the number in the caption to "Stalk-eyed fly (Diasemopsis)"? (and link and italicize the name)

Main editor appears to be inactive (hasn't edited since December 23), so am closing this review. Sasata (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)