Wikipedia:Peer review/Pollenia rudis/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pollenia rudis[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this was a group effort and I would like additional opinions on the flow of the article. I would also appreciate any feedback concerning duplicate information or other areas that should be focused on in the article. Should some sections be deleted or incorporated in other sections? All comments are welcome.

Thanks, KathrynR (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor item: I took a moment to make some copy edits to this article, which included abbreviating Pollenia rudis to P. rudis. Does this follow general Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates? (Does anyone except a few regulars on those pages care?) Whether that is the case, do you mind? -- llywrch (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any help is always appreciated! Thank you for making the changes you did. KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are some problems with references. They generally come right after punctuation (no space before) and are followed by a space after the last ref. They should also be in numerical order. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, so there are some places that still need refs, like Vacuum cleaners and aerosol insecticides may be used to control visible, sluggish flies, but professional extermination is the most reliable method for eliminating an infestation.
    Hopefully I have corrected all punctuation and spacing.  Thanks for pointing that out!KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid direct external links in the text - these should all be converted to inline citations - for example the direct link for the first two words in Entomophthora muscae or Entomophthora schizophorae is a fungus that commonly infects adult flies.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

These should be fixed now. Again, thank you!KathrynR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drop the Conlcusion section - this is a Wikipedia article, not a term paper (even if it is written for a college assignment, it should follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style

Done, thank you!KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that impede the flow - these shoiuld either be combined with others or perhaps expanded. For example the Predators section is only two sentences, or Life cycle has one sentence before the subsections.
    Also completed.KathrynR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice image - do you know there are several more on Commons? I will add {{commonscat}}
    Again, thank you. I found one on the site you listed and it shows how beautiful this species looks with the golden hairs in its thorax.KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about an idea of their size? Use {{convert}} to give both metric and English units.
This has been fixed.  Thank you.KathrynR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
    The intro has been expanded. Hopefully we have covered what you requested.KathrynR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful with WP:JARGON
  • Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD - "Control Methods" should just be "Control methods"
   Fixed, thank you.KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours,

Thank you very much for your help. We will work on implementing the changes you have suggested. KathrynR (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Pollenia_rudis/archive1&oldid=286409952"