Talk:Pollenia rudis

Discussion

First of all, very good job. This article was very educational while very easy to read. I personally enjoyed the history section of your page. I also respect the way you included both life cycles from Europe and North America. Your effort will be extremely helpful to those Wiki members needing information who aren't in North America. Thank you for your consideration. Lastly, I would just like to comment on your abundance of sources. The more sources, the better. Great job.Msrubar (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Msrubar

Thank you so much for taking the time to read over our article. We put a lot of effort into our research and are glad that you are pleased with the results. We really appreciate your input! Bg27 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article! There are just a couple of suggestions that I will throw your way. You may want to change the history section up a little bit so that you can have bigger paragraphs instead of smaller paragraphs with short sentences. If you can just merge some of those sentences together it would be pretty good. In the "Distinctive Markings" section you have a sentence that says "Size and shape are also aids in identification". I think you should take out are and say "Size and shape also aid in identification". On "Food Sources" you need to delete a couple of spaces after Eisenia lucens. Instead of having the title Predators you could list something like "Dangers to Pollenia rudis", since there is the fungus. On "Importance in Forensic Entomology" section change blowflies to either "blow flies" or "blow-flies" just make sure that it's not one word. Other than that, great article. It was extremely informative and planned out well. Good luck. H2342 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! blow flies has been fixed. I believe the punctuation and spacing has been fixed as well as the distinctive markings section. I will work on re-editnig the first paragraph! KathrynR (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Really great article in organization and layout. The article has a good sense of transition from section to section. However, my only issue is the lack of information on the ongoing research. Was there not enough information available in scientific journals on the subject for this section to be further developed?0'.12.1.0.N (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look it over. A large ammount of the research we came upon was concerned with the disease transmission of the species, which we covered briefly in one secion, however because it is not particularly forensically important there was limited information available concerning highly influential research. I'll continue looking so that we can potentially improve this section of our article. APad77 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is fairly comprehensive and very enjoyable to read! The history section and the section regarding the differentiated life cycles for Europe and North America are both written in an engaging manner. I only have two minor concerns related to formatting. One, the article tends to use longer paragraphs, which works when disseminating episodic or theoretical information, but may not be the best form for specific declarative information. The Distinctive Markings section in particular could be divided into two paragraphs: one to provide information on the physical appearance of P.rudis alone, and the second to compare it to other species. This would require changing the heading from Distinctive Markings to something along the lines of ‘Physical Appearance’, but I think it will be a positive change. The second change is simply related to making the article more illustrative. I enjoyed reading the information provided, but it appears as imposing blocks of text and could benefit from photographs in addition to smaller paragraphs. Great job! The layout, the flow and the tone of the article are all great! Agandhi7 (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Characteristics

I know this is super picky, but I am just trying to help edit. In the last sentence in the distinctive markings section, it says that Pollenia rudis has aristae antennae. I think it should be aristate antennae because it is being used as an adjective. But otherwise this article is really great and extensive. Txmaroonandwhite (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe that has been fixed.KathrynR (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Thanks for you help. I have changed the spelling. If you have any other comments please let us know. Ac22 (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed "blowflies" to "blow flies" in the Importance of Forensic Entomology section. Thank you for your help. DianaW10 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

editing

Great article! A few editing suggestions though.. In the introduction the sentences are a bit choppy, you might want to consider making compound sentences instead of short simple sentences, for example "This sluggish species can be found “clustering” near the interior windows of a warm structure. The cluster fly is considered a pest species in homes, schools, and other structures in Europe, Canada, and the United States. This species is known for parasitizing earthworms in their larval stage." might want to be changed to "....near the interior windows of homes, schools and other structures in Europe, Canada and the United States where it is considered a pest. This species is also known for parasitizing earthworms in their larval stage." also "The common name "cluster fly" was derived from the clustering behavior in adults of this species in attics and lofts. The common name, "buckwheat fly", is derived from the odor of buckwheat honey the species gives off when they are crushed." may want to be compounded into "The common names "cluster fly" and "buckwheat fly" are derived from their clustering behavior and the odor of buckwheat honey the species gives off when crushed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalyseg (talk • contribs) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I will be working on the evolution of the intro paragraph.KathrynR (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Distictive Markings/ Food Sources

Under your Distinctive Markings heading, you say all adults look like other Pollenia but you don't describe what those simnularities are.

Under Food Sources, the sentence " While feeding the P. rudis larva, leave the spiracles outside the earthworm" is a very awkward sentence and I don"t understand what you are trying to say.

Other than that, this is a nice page.LMS-ento431LMS-ento431 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the changes I added to it will help. I included the golden hairs on the thorax as well as the other coloration similarities. The section also now includes the fact that the tips of their wings overlap over their abdomen when at rest. KathrynR (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I enjoyed reading this page. It is relatively short, but concise and to the point. I think that all three paragraphs under Human Importance are really well written. The paragraphs are broken down in a logical way that makes the fly and its behavior interesting and educational.

I also like how you made note in the History section that since these flies parasitize a specific species of earthworm, that they are found where their hosts are founs. However, does this really belong in the History section? I think it would flow better where you discuss behavior or life cycles. Just a suggestion..

Another thing I feel would make your article stronger is to add to the predator section. How does the fungus infect and kill the adults? Why doesn't it bother the immatures? Also, why mention the sphecid wasp- what is its importance? I think the answers to these questions would make that section more informative.

All in all, great article. Kimberlyaggie2010 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)KimberlyAggie2010

Thanks for you input. I have added some more information about the fungus and the sphecid wasp to hopefully get rid of any confusion. Ac22 (talk) 15:42, 15, April 2009 (UTC)

This article is informative yet easy to read. I modified one word repenetrating to penetrating for grammar (North America section, third paragraph). As a suggestion I would change your wording in the Behavior section. "The flies like dry areas because of their aristae antennae," the word "like" implies the fly has feelings or thoughts. I suggest changing words that are anthropomorphizing towards the fly behavior. --Quatre127 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading our article and taking the time to fix the grammar error in the Life cycle section. In the Behavior section, the word "like" has been replaced with a more appropriate phrase. Thanks again. Bg27 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was highly informative and very thoroughly researched. I was wondering if you could include the optimal temperature range for development of P. rudis? Also, why is P. rudis life cycle different in Europe vs North America? Is this simply due to differing temperatures or are there other factors involved? Other than that this was an amazing article. Good Job. --Hoagiebear (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading our article. Unfortunately, an optimal temperature range was not found in the research that we conducted. We just found their growth rates at 23C, which probably falls into their optimal growth temperature range. However, I will continue looking through other sources to see if I can find a specific range. Also, as addressed in our article, the life cycle is different in Europe vs North America because unlike in Europe, there are three varieties of species in the rudis complex of North America. Thanks again. Bg27 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it is obvious you all took a great deal of time to formulate this article. Well done, and way to really make a statement with the History section. My only suggestion is, and this is solely a personal one, that perhaps you want to use less in-text citations. I think it's great that you want to tell the reader the origins of every phrase as much as you can, but I find it distracting with all the footnote reference clutter. It may do you will to half some of those up. Overall, very, very impressive. Nanayaagh (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read our article. I can understand where it can be distracting to have so many references within a paragraph. For now I would prefer to have those references as listed because most of those are websites and are potentially subject to change. With more references at least one may stand the test of time. Thank you for your input though!KathrynR (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Job! Overall this was a very informative and detailed article. The information about the fungus that infects this fly was interesting. Really the only suggestion I can make is to add a section about further research. This can easily be accomplished by splitting the last paragraph up when you start to talk about Pollenia rudis and its potential to be a disease vector. Besides this, the article seemed very complete and thorough. Good Job. Brock1732 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is very informative and interesting. While reading it I found a sentence that can be clarified by adding a word to it. In the History section I would add the word exhibited after clustering behavior in the first sentence. I really enjoyed the Life Cycle section because y'all included information for both Europe and North America. I also enjoyed the information provided in the Importance in Forensic Entomology section about how it differs from other blow flies. This article really shows that y'all put a lot of effort into making a great page. --Kaleelkirk (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I really did enjoy the information you shared in this article! The article nicely describes P. rudis’s time as a larva, particularly their interactions with earthworms. Also the “overwintering” habits of adult P. rudis, but this information was somewhat repetitive in the article. For instance, most of the same information is contained within the “overwintering” and “behavior” sections. P. rudis are nicknamed the “cluster fly,” so I think this article would especially benefit from adding a social behavior section-how do the flies tell each other where to cluster? Are there benefits to clustering? A section on how they fight or avoid predation would be interesting. Do they show grouping activity? Is that why they cluster? This article is also missing information on mating. It mentions that females oviposit eggs, but there is no information on what roles the males play, what kind of competition and mating behavior exists, and when/where that occurs. Montana.sievert (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Life Cycle

Good in depth information about the life cycles. I'm particulary intrigued by how they develop in different countries. I noticed you put the word "penetrate" in bold, if that's intended, then it shouldn't be a problem. I would put one or two life cycle diagrams for North America and Europe. Great work overall! Wggrant (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us about the word "penetrate" in the article. It was not meant to be in bold, so I went ahead and fixed it. I will work on finding some life cycle diagrams to help readers visualize the difference between the life cycles. Bg27 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

couple of comments

Hey guys it looks like you'll really did a great job researching this insect and covered a lot of material. First of I think another picture relating to an area in your article would add to the articles overall construction. I found numerous pictures on google and im sure you can get permission to use some. Secondly the predators subtitle might go better under life cylce than characteristics, or even under its own heading since its no actually a specific characteristic. Some links that were left out were eathworm in the first paragraph, and you should also go ahead and link buckwheat since you are specifically describing the odor that the insect has compared to buckwheat. Other than that great job guys the information is almost overwhelming.--Jake (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)