Talk:Drosophila simulans

message: D. simulans is actually a very important organism in areas of the genetics research community (of which I am a part). Much of this information may belong elsewhere in more broadly focused review articles, but I added some since it deserves mention. This organism may be unassuming, but I think it merits a more developed article.
--WillJeck 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Dr. Fowler-Finn: I have made several edits to my article based on the comments provided by you and my group members. For one, I made small edits to make the transition between words smoother. For example, I started a new paragraph  beginning with "Studies have shown that Wolbachia infections have significantly decreased..." for ease of readability. I also further explained why Drosophila simulans and Drosophila mauritiana were deemed to be more closely related than to Drosophila sechellia, as you suggested I do in your email. Furthermore, I cut out the irrelevant details of the minutia of the experiments (previously I had included the specific laboratory methods, such as the "renografin gradient" and "proteinase K solution" used). Specific references to studies were also removed in favor of the informational content they hold instead. I tried to find more details about what exactly Wolbachia is, and will continue compiling more data on Wolbachia in general for future drafts. Specifically, the importance of maternal heredity was expanded upon in the first paragraph of the Wolbachia section. In response to Anonymous4715's comments,  I unfortunately could not find confirmed studies involving differing populations of Drosophila simulans and how they vary based on Wolbachia infections. I will continue searching for relevant studies in order to continue clarifying Wolbachia's role in Drosophila simulans. Otherwise, I believe that this article is pretty well-established so far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.212.79 (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a student paper.  I have removed content unsuited for an encyclopedia. Scr★pIronIV 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

text: The article was not deleted; specific issues with testing and trial was removed as too detailed to be relevant to the species.  Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which summarizes topics.  It does not go into such minutiae for these subject.  It may be reasonable to create an article about the specific testing, if notable - but it would be linked to, and separate from. the article on this insect. Scr★pIronIV 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision and Response to Peer Feedback

message: * Original article deleted by ScrapIronIV because was thought to be unsuited for an encyclopedia and too detailed
	-A bit confused, since I think that the information is relevant to Drosophila simulans evolutionary history, genomics, and Wolbachia’s impact on a species. Rarely are primary sources used, and they seem to match the language and detail of common Wikipedia articles. Language can be slightly tweaked to be more clear and understandable.
There needs to be an increase in the amount of citations used. Every sentence should have a citation.
Possibly find more information on how Wolbachia was first introduced into Drosophila simulans or its origins.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheungd (talk • contribs) 06:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was not deleted; specific issues with testing and trial was removed as too detailed to be relevant to the species.  Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which summarizes topics.  It does not go into such minutiae for these subject.  It may be reasonable to create an article about the specific testing, if notable - but it would be linked to, and separate from. the article on this insect. Scr★pIronIV 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Review 11/15/15