# Talk:Drosophila subobscura

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): Andrewoh29. Peer reviewers: Jillian Shah, Olivia.urso, Lelandra.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For the overview section, I believe there are not supposed to be any references there to meet the standards for good article. So, I advise that these be taken out if the content mentioned in this section is already supported in other parts of the article. I also went through the article and made sure that the article format given on project diptera is followed, which he did. Otherwise, the article is well written and has lots of content as Andrew stayed with his first fly. Lots of references to cover everything. Y.shiuan (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
A brief scroll of the page shows the writer has paid special care to formatting properties; the taxobox is adequate, information has been broken down into short categories (all outlines in the Contents box), and subsections have been added under each category. Further, a taxon identifiers box at the bottom of the page shows the writer has researched the properties of a well-written Wikipedia article, and has ensured his own article contains these essential components. Images throughout the article provides the page with visual flow, however, a minor change that could be made would be to remove the picture of Dobzhansky as it is not essential to any critical information. 
The lead section is well-written and shows extensive understanding of the species. It provides a clear, well-written overview of what is to be expected from the article. Necessary words have been hyperlinked to provide a better understanding of the information provided. This trend continues through the rest of the article.
The writer has done a phenomenal job in summarizing what could have been dense and redundant information about the appearance of the fly species. 
Under the distribution category, some of the information has been redundantly worded and I have removed unnecessary wording in order to tighten the section. Edits can be viewed under the edit page (User JillianShah). I have reworded and taken away unnecessary detail from the “Distribution” category.
A number of hyperlinks do not have written Wikipedia articles, and clicking on these words does not take the leader to a page with information. I have removed these hyperlinks as they are unnecessary (chromocenter and paracentric inversions). 
Of note is the writer’s succinct summary of information under the “Genetics” category. The references from which this information is extracted is lengthy and dense, but the writer has done a profound job in narrowing down a tome of information into a few brief paragraphs. 
Finally, the writer has followed proper reference formatting.
Throughout the article, I have verified that the writer has not plagiarized information from references and that all references are reliable. Further, the writer has not simply reworded or copy-and-pasted information from his references. Instead, dense and otherwise inaccessible information has been whittled down into brief and easily comprehensible language. Few grammatical errors are apparent in the article, and the page has parallel flow. The page itself has visual flow and does not overwhelm the reader. A variety of references have been included, and the writer has shown special care to detail. To see all edits made, please visit the View history page for this article (User: JillianShah)
Jillian Shah (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I would add a picture of the organism in the initial right-hand table in the Introduction section, that way, when the initial Wikipedia page comes up on Google or another search engine, viewers can get an idea of what organism they are looking at. Moreover, your "Mating" section was very thorough and contained appropriate subheadings. You used a great number of sources throughout your article. You also utilized the ‘embed link’ feature effectively! Overall, nice job! lelandra 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Fantastic article! Really nicely written and extremely clear. I improved the formatting in several of the sections, specifically, the Colonization in the Americas section. This section, and a few others, read more like bullet-point lists than an article. Additionally, I may add more explanation to the Immunodeficiency section as it was slightly confusing for a layperson to read. Overall, it was an extremely clear article and very informative; I really enjoyed the read!
Olivia.urso (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW (2)
An initial impression of the article as soon as a user scrolls down the page is that the article looks professional, clean, and organized. Appropriate formatting has been used and the writer has done a phenomenal job in making the page look aesthetically pleasing. Furthermore, I noticed that the writer has used past comments on the talk page to grow his Wiki article and to make adequate changes to make his article even more polished than it already was. 
An area deserving of praise is the "Description" category. This section is well-worded and provides a synopsis of the roots of the description of this fly. This is a novel idea and is a technique used in Wiki pages written by experienced Wiki users! 
Furthermore, I visited the references the writer used to extract Description material from, and I noticed the writer took complex and rather detailed information and whittled it down into small chunks of digestible text. The section titled "Taxonomy and Phylogentic Relationships" does an exemplary job in showing how the writer took information about experimental work on the fly and summarized the key details instead of providing an overabundance of unnecessary information. 
One area to look into is the inclusion of reference (34) in the "Influence of Gut Microbiota on Mating Behavior" subcategory. The subsection summarized information found in a single experimental study, but it may be beneficial to cross-reference other papers that prove the information of the study or that can validate the conclusion made in reference (34). The subcategory "Use in Tracking Climate Change" also uses a single reference to talk about the behaviors of the fly, and because the findings of this source make up an entire subsection in the Wiki article, it may be beneficial to provide other instances where the fly was used in tracking climate change. If there are no other occasions, it may be helpful to move this subsection into a new category titled, "Novel Human Benefits from Fly". 
Other edits I made include removing the external links Drosophila madeirensis,D. guanche, and subobscura in the overview because these words do not have Wiki pages. Furthermore, I removed the word "Mr." in "Mr. J. E. Collin" under the description section as it is unnecessary.
Overall, the user has done an exceptional job in detailing this fly and working novel ideas into his page. The user's article shows intense attention to detail, and there are no other detectable grammatical or structural errors needing correction. All information has been verified using the references sources, and no signs of plagiarism were detected. 
Jillian Shah (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a great, well-detailed and extensive Wikipedia page. While most of it is well-written and cohesive, there were a few edits I made and a few suggestions I have. First, I believe that the overview is too long. Some of the information presented in the overview is not important enough to put in the overview and would be fine just in a section below, according to the overview guidelines for Wikipedia. Also, I highly suggest that the author add citations to the end of each sentence that was paraphrased or used information from another source. Just putting citations and the end of a paragraph is incorrect and can be misleading. The last large edit I did was to split up the top paragraph of the "Description" section into "Description" and "Discovery" because the original two paragraphs together under description did not go well together. Finally, the smaller edits I had were fixing spacing between sections, hyperlinking some concepts like "arista," and editing some grammatical errors. I also recommend adding some explanations or hyperlinks in the "Description" section where many words, such as pollinose and reclinate, are not well known. Overall, a great job and a very thorough article.Hannahwhite97 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


##### Peer Review (3)
The user has done a phenomenal job on this article and has devoted an immense amount of time in researching and developing a proper Wikipedia article for this fly. However, there are a few suggestions to help this article reach good article status. With these edits, the article has potential of attaining good article status! First, I would change the centering of the images so that they are not all aligned on the right side of the page. This will help provide more symmetry to the page as well as provide better aesthetic flow to the body of the article. Furthermore, the article’s heading may need to include more information as it is quite sparse and does not entirely detail the immense amount of information available on the entire page. In addition, there are numerous unnecessary words that have been hyperlinked, such as “addendum” and “note” among others. Hyperlinks should only be used when they contribute to the user’s understanding of information in the article, and I have removed any unnecessary hyperlinks. These words include: family, eyes, legs, wings, male, matte, branches, eggs, species, manuscript, validate, sexes, note, description, evidence, preference, acceleration, deceleration, back, kicking, dances, and evolution. The user should be wary about adding so many hyperlinks to such general Wiki articles as they will be highly scrutinized by the Wikipedia community. Further, I have changed the heading name “Study Organisms for Evolutionary Biology” to “Significance to Evolutionary Biology” in order to provide a more clear and informative heading to the section. I have also changed the section heading “Use in Tracking Climate Change” to “Significance in Tracking Climate Change” to provide parallel structure to the page with the previous edit that I made. Finally, there is an abundance of information on the page about the history, discovery, and physical characteristics of the fly, but there is less information about the social behaviors and interactions of these flies. A section about parental care may need to be added as well as a section on the interaction of these flies with other subspecies of the family. This information is necessary to understand the social interactions these flies have with their environment and with other competitors. Another section that could contribute greatly to this article is one on the evolution of this species from others as there is a section stating that the species is significant to evolutionary biology. Thus, the genetics section could easily be expanded upon as the user has the information referenced already within the article. Finally, I noticed that the overall article should have more focus on the social interactions of the fly species within each of the subsections of the article. For example, in the “Distribution” subsection, the user should compare the distribution of D. subobscura to the distribution of other species of the family. The article as a whole should integrate more information that compares, contrasts, and identifies how this species is different or similar to other related species in order to provide better, more comprehensive analysis of the social interactions and behavior of this species(for the purpose of this class). Last but not least, the article has many references and the user has done commendable research into finding pertinent information on his fly, however, the article seems to use very little of the information available from each of the references. Specifically, the user may want to go back to the articles and read through the entirety of the articles to obtain more comprehensive and significant information on the fly. Although Wikipedia articles should be concise and accessible, this can still be attained while also offering the greatest breadth of information available. All in all, however, the user has shown immense care for the page and the suggestions above are quite picky as the article has great potential to become one of good article standing! The user has dedicated profound energy and care into his page, and his work is commendable! 
Jillian Shah (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Andrew, this is a fantastic and thorough article! I love your use of media and the depth that you cover in each topic.  The information is clearly presented in an organized manner.  My biggest recommendation would be to synthesize or rearrange the Overview section to highlight one interesting point about your fly and then move into the bulk of your work, rather than have 3 separate paragraphs detailing different ideas.  Additionally, some consistency with the hyperlinks would help a bit, and it would not hurt to use them a bit more. For example, you linked and introduced A.H. Sturvevant as a reference late in the article rather than the first time.  These are minor adjustments, however, and the overall body of work is excellent. 
Eengermann (talk)
I thought that Name Validation could’ve been its own heading because I don’t think that Name validation had much to do with the description of the fly. I also moved the discovery section and made it its own heading due to the fact that I thought it was sorta misplaced being a subheading of description of the fly while the other subheadings in that section have to do with morphology. I thought this article had a lot of information and I could tell that you put in a lot of effort. I thought it was very interesting and talked about information that many of the other articles didn't. KendalTLee (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The claim that Drosophila subobscura does not encapsulate foreign bodies is sourced to a primary source. It is my understanding that this result is believed to be erroneous. It certainly never went anywhere. For it to remain in the article, I feel that an independent second source that either describes an experimental replication of the first, or a review article that strongly supports it needs to be included. (I have made a cursory search and failed to find anything. In fact, I failed to find any sequelae of note.) Science is full of one-off experiments that fail to have any impact in the field. That is why Wikipedia has the WP:PSTS and WP:CHALLENGE Policies. Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Dobzhansky no Brasil em 1943.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Analysis of development (1955) (18166344402).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Analysis of development (1955) (18166344402).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)