Talk:Protophormia terraenovae

General

Conops, I altered your edit slightly. In my research, it is Phormia regina that is most commonly referred to as the Black blowfly. Although that epithet is also ascribed to P. terraenovae in some sources, most of the information I encountered referred to it as the Northern blowfly. Aggie2011nerd (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Job. I really like all the detailed information on the importance of your species. Maybe an idea to include more information could be to describe the general life cycle or just basic stages in the form of days. All in all good work and keep it up! Sarahgrace12 (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; the user responsible for that section is looking into it. :) Aggie2011nerd (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It’s a very informative article. I like how you have the article organized, making it easy for the reader to find information without getting lost in huge paragraphs. However, the medical importance and future/current research sections concern me in their brevity. Is there no more information about these subjects which can be extrapalated on? Perhaps elaborate on the medical proceedures when preforming maggot debridement therapy as well as where this medical practice is headed in future research. 0'.12.1.0.N (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're going to leave the explanation of maggot therapy up to that particular Wikipedia article. I do agree, however, that there is more information that can be added here, in both of those sections. That's being worked on! Thanks very much. Aggie2011nerd (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your page looks great, but you might want to add a picture. Also, you might want to add some external links to you page. Vekrull (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture added--took a while to find one! :) And the external links suggestion is a good one. Thanks for the input! Aggie2011nerd (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The page looks great. There are a few sections that have way too many links, and other sections that barely have any links at all. Also, the current research section is lacking a lot of information. either remove it, or add more to it.Pyrothansia (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The user responsible for that section is working on polishing it up. We've added a few more links throughout the page: hopefully it looks a little more even now! Aggie2011nerd (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was very good. After reading I have a good understanding of the species. I like how you divided the life stages into different sections that made it easy to read and understand. I also thought it was really good that the economic and forensic importance sections were really detailed. They made the page more interesting and informative. I do think that you could add a couple pictures if that is at all possible. Also, when you link words to other pages you only have to link the word the first time it is used. Overall, I think y’all did a really good job! Karalin11 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it! Unfortunately, good pictures of this species are tough to come by. The current one was licensed to us by someone at the Zoological Museum of Moscow University. If I find any others, I will certainly try to get permission to use them! Thanks for the suggestions.

This article was really exceptional. It was very interesting and detailed. I especially enjoyed the taxonomy section. I only have one grammatical suggestion. The second sentence in the Forensic section is a compound sentence and the second part of it starts with "because they". The next sentence also begins with "because they". Perhaps you could change the second because to since, which would just make it more readable. You guys did a really awesome job!Ayoussef17 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll definitely check on that. Thanks! :) Aggie2011nerd (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a great article guys! I was especially impressed with your Economic and Forensic Importance sections; they were very descriptive and interesting. There was one minor detail that I noticed in your Taxonomy section, "The oldest-known specimens of P. terraenovae pupae were identified ... pupae of the modern species." this sentence presents some of the history associated with P. terraenovae. Maybe you should consider creating a History heading somewhere in your article and put this sentence there. It would give you a chance to discuss the history of P. terraenovae, thus giving you more paragraphs and making your article that much more credible. Great work and good luck! Cassiegz (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm...that's a good point. I thought it fit decently well in the Taxonomy section just because it dealt with the identification of the species. Robineau-Desvoidy *discovered* the fly in the 1800's, but interestingly, the species is very old. Information about the history of P. terraenovae is somewhat limited, and that's why we don't have a History section: it would be pretty short! If we do find further information on the history of the fly, however, we will add a section for it. Thanks, Cassiegz! Aggie2011nerd (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This was an amazing article, one of the best I have read so far. Your forensic importance and medical sections are exceptional because there is a lot of useful information. However, the forensic importance section is quite lengthy and should have some sort of a "break" to give the eyes some rest. Maybe this can be achieved by adding pictures of the larvae. This is the only thing I noticed when reading the article. Once again great job! - Maryam618 (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any pictures of the larvae, but I did shorten the section a little bit--and I separated the Pig Farm Case from the general forensic information. I hope it's better! Aggie2011nerd (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well organized page! It was also very detailed and informative. The importance of this species was especially thorough and I could tell a lot of research and effort hase been put in! I liked how the morphology section was broken down into the adult and larvae stage. It would be nice if the opening paragraph had a little bit of more of an overview of the page. Also, adding a picture would be awesome, but from what I have read, that is somewhat of a complication for you guys. Overall, well written article! Keep up the good work! SH810 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, SH810. I'm taking a second look at the introduction--it's been alternately praised and criticized, so I'll see what I can do! Aggie2011nerd (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction was very well written and summarized. Also, I noticed that throughout the page Protophormia terraenovae is used, as well as P. terraenovae. Since the full name is stated in the beginning, I think using P. terraenovae throughout the rest of the article would make the article flow more nicely. The Economic and Forensic sections were quite interesting. However, the forensic section was relatively a bit too long. I suggest shortening. Overall, it was a great article. --Sp2011 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I shortened the Forensic section a little bit--hope that helped! I'll go back through and evaluate Protophormia v. P. terraenovae--I think the abbreviation helps to "unclutter" the article a bit, but I'll definitely look at it! Thanks, Sp2011! Aggie2011nerd (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Headings

In your "Geographic Distribution" and "Current and Future Research" headings only the first word should be capitalized. It should be: Geographic distribution and Current and future research. Blhockey19 (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Blhockey. It's fixed. Aggie2011nerd (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)