Talk:Apple maggot

A fact from Apple maggot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 October 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that adult apple maggot flies (example pictured) use their wing patterns defensively to mimic spiders?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Apple maggot.

Wikipedia

Diptera Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Insects Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Female apple maggot (Rhagoletis pomonella), image taken in Lakewood, Colorado, United States

... that adult Apple maggot flies (pictured) defensively use their wing patterns to mimic spiders? Source: Ricklefs and Miller. (2000)
- ALT1:... that the Apple maggot species (pictured) is an example of sympatric speciation? Source: Feder, J. L. (1998)

5x expanded by Listephanie (talk). Self-nominated at 20:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Listephanie! Here's my review of your nomination, which may seem a bit impersonal and jargon-y since it's trying to cover all the criteria for the review. I enjoyed reading the page even though I don't specialize in biology. 5x expansion is long enough and new enough. Prose is neutral, has ample in-line citations, with no close paraphrasing or plagiarism detected. Quid Pro Quo (QPQ) not required as this is Listephanie's first nomination. Both hooks are neutral, short enough, and cited in-line in the article. Sources are print and taken on good faith. The image is freely licensed, is used on the page, and looks fine in a small thumbnail. I approve the nomination and both hooks. The first is more interesting to a broad audience, since many people may not know the definition of sympatric speciation. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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): Listephanie. Peer reviewers: Sydney.stein7, ArndtH, Chickfilkay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

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)

Apple maggot (fly) - evolved where?[edit]

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)[reply]

Edits and major expansion[edit]

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)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

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)[reply]

Great article, I can definitely see why it was posted to the “Did you know” page! The corrections I made were mainly for style and grammar- some of the sentences were structured a little awkwardly so I rearranged them to flow a little better. Also I moved around some of the citations so that they appeared at the end of the sentence as opposed to in the middle. Some phrases/sentences were redundant so I took them out as well. (Sydney.stein7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney.stein7 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was an extremely well-written and thorough article. I made small changes in grammar and word choice, as well as added italicizations and punctuation where necessary. I eliminated double spacing after periods and in the middle of sentences, and got rid of some phrases that seemed redundant or otherwise needed concision. I changed the sentence structure of some sentences that seemed in danger of being run-on. I added the subheading "Control" under Interactions with Humans, to differentiate aspects of their interaction. I also completed the caption for the photo from the USDA with 6 figures and added some internal links. Like the other reviewers, I can really tell why this was on the front page of Wikipedia. The quality of writing is excellent. ArndtH (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article. The main things I fixed on this page were spacing and grammar, such as shortening sentences and removing unnecessary commas. I also hyperlinked "overwinter." I recommend that you add more citations, especially to the overview. There is an arrow formatted into the overview that should be removed. Also, instead of saying "worm" in the overview you should say the actual term. I think the information in the parenthesis in the overview can be put in a different place so that the sentence is shorter and easier to understand. Finally, I think the Description section can be better organized.Hannahwhite97 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephanie, this is a really comprehensive, well-written article! The entry has a breadth of detailed information on this fly species already, so I focused on editing sentence structure and grammar to bring it up to GA status. There were a few wordy sentences that I edited to be more succinct, and a sentence was repeated in the last paragraph of the last section in “Interactions with humans”, so I removed the redundant sentence. I internally linked a few more words to existing Wikipedia articles as well. RappaiT (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely comprehensive and well detailed. The writing structure is laid out in a clear organized format and research is cited accordingly. I made a few grammar/syntax changes and added additional research to the "Control" section of the fly. Overall, great work! Rchiou (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]