Talk:Apple maggot

message: Interestingly, this is one of those cases where nobody in real life capitalizes the species name. Being a pest and all, there are a great many pages written by various authorities who need to use the common name so as to communicate better with the apple growers, but I haven't yet found a page where they capitalize the name. Stan 15:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article gives as an example of divergent evolution the history the apple maggot fly, which it states as having occurred between 1800 - 1850 in North America.
Yet the 'wiki' article on 'divergent evolution' gives as a time and place for the evolution of this fly as being from 1850s in Australia.
Both articles can't be correct, can they? So if not, which article is correct? Van Dieman (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple maggot (fly) - evolved where? 

message: As part of my behavioral ecology class for Project Diptera, I have added the following new sections: Description, Distribution and habitat, Life history, Feeding behavior, Mating, Enemies, Protective mimicry (section heading), and Interaction with humans.  I have expanded the section "Evolution" and reorganized some information about mimicry from the lead section to the new section "Protective mimicry."  In addition, I added an image showing different stages of the fly to "Description." I have added eight new credible sources and improved the citation for the source by Weems, which I also used but was originally cited already.  I used in-text citations, and my sources are peer-reviewed journal articles.  My classmates assisted in proofreading and fact-checking in reference to my sources.  I also added the WikiProject Diptera banner.  Listephanie (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and major expansion

message: Which is in progress. 
In general this article is awesome! Great job, Stephanie. All of my changes are fairly minor--much of the content is here in my opinion, so I resorted to focusing on narrative/wording to yield substantive edits.
I deleted a claim in the lead section about from where the apple magot came from because it sparked controversy on the talk page--apparently two different articles said two different things about how it evolved.
Some of the language and wording is a bit awkward or nonspecific, so I rearranged a sentence or two for clarity. I also noted on at least one occasion in which a citation is needed. I linked a wikipedia page at least once for at least one word that was not otherwise linked or cited. In general, I would err on the side of having a citation for every claim.For a science article like this it means close to every sentence unfortunately…
Replaced “difficult to detect” (according to who? Possibly subjective) to “blend in ” for example.
Reworded vague terms like “generally speaking” so that the article is more straight to the point (etc etc, changes like these)
Are you able to find any pictures of the developing larvae? Those would be nice to complement the text descriptions.
No need to do a reference in text as well as an end of sentence citation for that 2000 study (nor the 1995 study...so I deleted the in text references and left the citations). I am also not positive it should be included because it is an independent study (I believe the 1995 study is independent research as well) and it’s unclear to me if the foundings are considered the consensus finding?
Great work again!
Chickfilkay (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review