Talk:Common green bottle fly

message: *My corrections are in quotations.  Just sentence ideas to make it more encyclopedic and brief.  Its a great page.  The pictures are great!  I love the first one.  
Intro
*The larvae of the fly are also used for maggot therapy.  Since you haven’t metioned the maggots yet you can just say “The larvae of the fly are used for maggot therapy.”  No ALSO is needed.  
Biology
*This insect is also typical to most fly species by having three instar stages, a pre-pupa stage, and a pupa stage. Make the wording brief and to the point, that’s more encyclopedic.  “Like most fly species, the L. cuprina has three instar stages, a pre-pupa stage, and a pupa stage.”
*Lucilia sericata is almost identical to its sister Lucilia cuprina.  I think u should add “SPECIES” after sister.  
*Identification between the two requires microscopic examination of two main distinguishing characteristics.  I dont think you need to say two again,  “Identification between the two species requires microscopic examination of main distinguishing characteristics.” 
Forensic importance
*To make this statement, Lucilia sericata is a rather important species to forensic entomologists., more powerful just say “Lucilia sericata is an important species to forensic entomologists.”  Take out RATHER.  
*The veterinary importance paragraph was interesting.  
Medical importance
*L. sericata has shown promise in three separate, but related clinical approaches. I don’t think you need say “but related”.  Its not needed. Mkw0509 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: *I really think you should cite where you got the information that this species is secure. 
*"Forensic Importance", "Medical Importance", and "Veterinary Importance" section header-- only the first word of section headers should be capitalized (unless there's a name involved).
* Many instances of Lucilia sericata could be shortened to L. sericata; in general use the full name in the first occurrence in a new section, then the short form after that.
--Hieu87 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation Status, Headings, and Taxonomy

message: * Yea, I guess I caught the same stuff... "Importance" in your titles does not need to be capitalized. "post-mortem" can be linked to "post mortem" by post-mortem. Robertsonza7 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I think your first sentence may be a little awkward sounding and you may want to say: "and is the most..." or make it into two sentences.Blhockey19 (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Sentence 

message: I'm not really sure if there has been alot of research on L. sericata, but if it is the most common bottle fly, there should be alot of information on it. Maybe you should go into some detail about what has been studied previously and on going research studies. 
Other than that, I think information was straight forward.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmedina21 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential research  

message: In the introduction you mention the bristles on the thorax. Since this is a useful aid in distinguishing it from other flies in its genus you may want to put more emphasis that it is the one of the only ones with 3 bristles on the dorsal mesothorax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalyseg (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: In the Life Cycle section there isn't a single reference in the paragraph. Every claim you make, however basic it may seem, needs atleast one reference. I would suggestion if even at the end of the article to cite. Overall, very well written, there are a few minor changes that need to be corrected that other people as well have pointed out! Good luck! (Emmalee1250 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: This was a well written, direct article. There are a few edits that should be made, some have been mentioned in suggestions above. First, I saw that the headers of your sections do not follow the proper guidelines. Only the first word of the section header should be capitalized, unless the second word is a name. Also, the section on Forensic importance was kind of "wordy." Towards the end of the paragraph, the phrase "on the body" or "the dead body" is used often and begins to sound repetitive when reading. I suggestion exchanging the words "the dead body" with something like "corpse" or "cadaver". Hope this helps! Good job! Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: Thank you all very much for your suggestions! We appreciate the feedback and will work on it diligently.
User:aemejia22  —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: This is a great article! I just saw a couple of things that maybe if you looked into could make your article even better! 
I feel as though you could add more links in "vet importance" and "life cycle" sections. There are a lot of words like "conical" "larva" "pupa" or even "respiration" that could be linked.
Also, in the Life cycle section, you briefly mention that your fly goes through 3 instar stages. Is there any other details about those instars that you could provide?
The medical importance section was also slightly confusing for the average reader.
Overall though, I really like the article. My favorite section is the "vet importance" section. I can tell that the entire article for the most part was well researched and thought out. Great Job!
Good luck!
amahajan17 (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: A few things. First of all, it seems that the introductory section and the Biology section are confusing in terms of what section should hold what type of information. In other words, each section seems to hold ideas that could be in the other. Also, the article would probably do well to have the Biology section under another name, such as Characteristics or something of that sort. The term Biology seems way too broad. I'm not sure what you would want to do with that. Also, is there any way you could use/draw from more references? I feel, especially with such a lengthy & potentially groundbreaking article, that a minimum of ten should be the standard in terms of establishing validity. Just some suggestions - good work ! Nanayaagh (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions again

message: I've just patrolled this article as pat of the NP patrol. All seems in order- it's nice to come across a well written article for the patrol! It could do with a few more references here and there, but other than that, it seems pretty good to me. I recommend you request re- assessment of the article, since it, in my opinion, has easily exceeded "stub" class and may be worthy of promotion. Anything I can do to help, just let me know here. HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New pages patrol]]

message: I've added several sections to the article (Food Resources, Mating, Parental Care, and Social Behavior, in the order that WikiProject Diptera recommends) as well as adding to several existing sections (Life History and Veterinary Importance, primarily). The information I used came from peer-reviewed journal articles, which are cited in-text. I've also added a WikiProject Diptera banner. EllyGrant (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and Expansion

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Is it known why human myiasis from this species is so rare? They clearly have the capability (see e.g. ) and they're quite common in some areas so you'd think it would be a common occurrence. 92.67.227.181 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myiasis 

message: I note that this article paints the positives of the insect's medico-scientific relationship with humans, but it doesn't reflect the folk relationship. This insect is largely loathed by humans in England, regarded as a 'shit fly' due to its common association with cow-pats and dog mess, and is (of the three most commonly-encountered large flies in the domestic environment) the least frequently seen indoors and the one most detested for its appearances. It is generally destroyed or evicted without delay.
Yet there is no mention of this aspect of the insect's co-existence with humans in this article? I suspect that this article reflects only an entomologist's point of view. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:B5B6:E614:66C0:C044 (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interaction with Humans