Wikipedia:Peer review/Calliphora vicina/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on how this article can be improved to be as effective as possible.
Thanks, Colstewart71639 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
[edit]- The Image:CVicinaUpclose.jpg image should be made into a thumbnail with a suitable caption per WP:MOS#Images.
- Expand the lead to at least two paragraphs.
- "as the blow-flies." - as a blow-fly?
- "These flies are important in the field of forensic entomology." - why?
- "10-11 mm " use the en-dash to separate numerical ranges and use the {{convert}} template to provide imperial measurements.
- "known as the blow-flies." vs "commonly known as a blue bottle fly " - be consistent.
- Link chaetotaxy, meron, notopleuron and instar or explain them, this is unaccessible to the non-expert.
- "3-4 days. " en dash.
- "27 degrees Celsius" use the convert template as above. And for all following cases of temperatures.
- Don't allow spaces between punctuation and references per WP:CITE.
- PMI needs to be explained before it's used.
- Numbers below 10 should be written out in words.
- References should use {{Cite web}} when using the internet as references.
- Page ranges in citations need to use the en-dash as well.
That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- A good way to lay the article out is Chrysiridia rhipheus which recently passed GA. I find the headings give a good framework where to add material. Thus lifecycle would go under behaviour and you could have a really interesting uses section for all the forensic stuff at the bottom. Once this is done, and some more detailed taxonomic section and description, and material expanded, we can look at the prose. Interesting article! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)