Talk:Compsomyiops callipes

This article is rated C-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.

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.

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

Heading Issue

I think you mixed up your Notes section and your Reference section... --Hieu87 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family Name??

I've noticed you guys switch back and forth between the family name calliphoridae and Calliphoridea. You guys should stick to one. Also, I've noticed some of the genus/species names are not italicized. Other than those, the content looks fine. Great job. Heedeok (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments, I believe both of these issues have been fixed. Karajean88 (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category Problem

Okay, so I noticed that you your link to your category section isn't working. This is how to make it work:

Type:

     [ [ Category : Flies ] ]
     [ [ Category : Calliphoridae ] ]

of course when you are putting it, don't put any spaces between characters and symbols.

--Hieu87 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Hieu87[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the help! We really appreciate it. --Karajean88 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heading and Measurements

"Life Cycle" and Current Research" section headers--only the first word of section headers should be capitalized (unless there's a name involved).

In your Description section, there should be a non-breaking space after a measurement, 6-12 mm, and an en-dash between numbers. The same goes for the measurements in the life cycle section section. Consult the links to see exactly how you should do this

"...and has a mean air temperature of 69.9⁰F." use the convert template to conveniently give both the degrees in Celsius and Fahrenheit. The same goes for your measurements in miles. make a nice conversion to kilometers for those outside the U.S. more comfortlable looking at the SI system.

Also, this isn't really a big issue, but I would suggest you limit comments under pictures to short fragments. Make the descriptions succint and to the point. It just sounds better, trust me.

--Hieu87 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hieu87[reply]

Thank you so very much for all of your help! We've made these changes and really appreciate your input.--Karajean88 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

We have looked at some examples of in-line citation, but I'm not sure what else we can do to get the banner removed from our page. Karajean88 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I'm not so sure the pictures are effective. The arrows point to something but I don't see the plumose arista and the glare on the notum makes it hard to see the hairs. The picture of the gena clearly demonstrates the yellow color. Maybe find better pictures that really illustrate what you are trying to show for the other two. Lamd86 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct the pictures are not the best quality, but these were pictures taken by our group with camera attached to a dissecting microscope. We searched diligently for pictures of Compsomyiops callipes and could not find any. The pictures are there merely to illiterate some of the structures of the fly we mention in the article. If you have any pictures that we could put then we would be more than willing to do that. Thanks for the comment! Agg4Lfe (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is a pretty solid page. However, might I suggest that you add a picture of the insect of choice in the scientific classification content box? This is just a recommendation (as it would fit in with other pages) and is purely for aesthetic purposes. A few more links to other wikipedia pages within this article wouldn't hurt either. But overall, nice job! --C19872010g (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment! Unfortunately there aren't many very clear pictures of this species, but if we can find one we will definitely put it up! --Karajean88 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description

In the description section, it says that its antennae are plumose arista. This sounds confusing like you are refering to the type of antennae as plumose arista, when actually just the arista (a branch off the antennae) is plumose. Diptera do have aristate antennae though. Also under Importance and Current research sections, the genus and species of your insect are capitalized, instead of just the genus. Txmaroonandwhite (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing these to our attention! They have both been corrected Agg4Lfe (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative. Just two suggestions. In the description section, you say, "is a member of the order Diptera meaning two wings. Diptera are characterized by having two forewings...". This tautological offense can be remedied by removing the phrase "meaning two wings." That will make it flow better. Also, it seems that while this fly is forensically important, the number of references listed do not support that fact. Is there any way more than the seven can be found? Nanayaagh (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall your page is good

Overall your page is good. I fixed a few grammatical and spelling errors. Under the Life Cycle heading, your second sentence is very awkward. You could say " The first stage is the larval stage which is broken up into instars." although the egg stage is also part of the life cycle and is the first stage. LMS-ento431 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)LMS-Ento431[reply]

I agree that this page is good. To further improve, there are places throughout the article that seem run on due to lack of commas or semicolons, as if without a pause. I hope that makes sense...In the research section, "phylogenic analysis" might need to be further explained for those not familiar with biology or genetics. Otherwise, everything looks fine. Great job!--Jdarnell (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good page

Most of the paragraph consists of simple sentences. I think it would be better if you combined some simple sentences into compound sentences so that the paragraph flows better. Ifound that in the Description and Life cycle paragraphs that you site for the same source multiple times. It's only necessary to site at the end of the paragraph if all the information came from the same source.Fullmetalrpg (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment! We appreciate your help! --Karajean88 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off this was a finely written article. I especially enjoyed the description section. The photos really added to the understanding of the anatomy of the insect and the major distinctions between it and other closely related species of the genus Cochliomyia. Great job guys. --Hoagiebear (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well written article, I enjoyed reading it. Just a little random fact I learned from dad, I don't know if you would like to utilize it but he told me that in third world Asian countries like the Philippines, this fly species is known more as disease carrier than as an aid to medicocriminal entomology. At one time, it was blamed for the spread of cholera among infants. Fly of this species are common in rural wet markets where sanitation is not strictly observed. In the Philippines, this fly species is commonly known as “bangaw.” In third world Asian countries like the Philippines, this fly species is known more as disease carrier than as an aid to medicocriminal entomology. At one time, it was blamed for the spread of cholera among infants. Fly of this species are common in rural wet markets where sanitation is not strictly observed. In the Philippines, this fly species is commonly known as “bangaw.” Pbianca88 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.55.246 (talk) [reply]

Life Cycle

This part of the article is very informative. You have many good facts and descriptions of the different cycles, but for the reader's sake it may help to format the paragraphs with subheadings for each life cycle so each reader can find what they are looking for faster.Wggrant (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! We really appreciate your input!--Karajean88 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

I have made some minor grammatical corrections to this section of the page. rmal21 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I thought the page was good and very straight forward. The introduction was good and to the point. However I thought that most of the sections were a little short. Maybe adding a few more interesting details throughout would help to make the page more extensive and interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookenikole (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I thought the page was good and very straight forward. The introduction was good and to the point. However I thought that most of the sections were a little short. Maybe adding a few more interesting details throughout would help to make the page more extensive and interesting. Brookenikole (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think your page was pretty nice. I really liked how you incorporated pictures of the fly in your description. Pointing out major physical characteristics of the fly with pointers in the pictures was an excellent idea! As for improvement, what I noticed in your article was that you used the word, palps, as singular throughout the article. Shouldn't "palp" be changed to "palps" since palps are considered as a pair? Also, you have a couple of red links in your articles. I would just take the links away since they don't direct to an existing page. Other than that, great job on the article! ShikhaY (talk) 3:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture and Links

Great information firstly. I think a big thing though is a picture is needed in that taxonomy box on the right. It's the first thing people see when they come to the sight and it's really easy to do. I already added an "image line" to the edit page to make it easier so now all you have to do is go in and paste your image right into that line and it will come up. A couple of linkes are missing as well. In the first paragraph I would definetely link both post mortem interval as well as forensic entomology. You can also link bristles in description, and riparian in locale. Lastly you have phylogenic anyalysis linked in red when your better of just linking it straight to Phylogenetics (I saw this linked here in PCR analysis). Otherwise great article and great information and I think the picture will add some cleanliness to the page. --Jake (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compsomyiops callipes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020048/http://www.forensicentomologist.com/userfiles/Pub.doc to http://www.forensicentomologist.com/userfiles/Pub.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]