Wikipedia:Peer review/Blow-fly/archive1
Blow-fly[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we'd like as much input as possible.
Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments:
- It is always useful to have a model article to work on and follow as a guide for organization and ideas on how to discuss the topic. Chrysiridia rhipheus is a recent Good Article and seems like a decent model for this one.
- Make sure the lead summarizes the whole article per WP:LEAD, for example there is no mention of the list of species in North America in the lead.
- Also make sure the lead has no material not elsewhere in the article (Shakespeare does not seem to be listed again).
- The article is seriously under-referenced. For example the whole Diversity section does not have a single reference. At a minimum, each paragraph should have a ref, as should all direct quotes, all statisctics, and any extraordinary claims. Please see WP:CITE.
- The article is also under-linked and needs many more wikilinks.
- Per the MOS, units should be in both metric and English units (not just mm). Try using {{convert}}.
- Avoid jargon or explain it better.
- Nice pictures
- Try to avoid really short sections like the one sentence "Disease" section "Adults may vector pathogens of diseases such as dysentery."
- The "Identification" section should be in the references
- Use references and not direct external links in the text. For example, To view actual cases where maggot therapy is used go to: http://www.ucihs.uci.edu/som/pathology/sherman/cases.htm, or the four links at the end of "Characteristics"
- Generally good job providing context and explaining jargon - makes it easier for the average reader - thanks.
- Reliable sources need to be published in some form - ref 1 appears to be lecture notes from a class (for which this article is being written) and does not seem to be reliable. You could reference the textbook (if you have one)