Wikipedia:Peer review/Insect indicators of abuse or neglect/archive1

Insect indicators of abuse or neglect

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it fits the criteria as an encyclopeadic article and if so how well. I would also like to know if the article is informative and understandable.

Thanks, Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1. She had developed pressure spots where her head had been resting on her chest for long periods of time - head on chest ? is that possible ? Perhaps it is hand.
2. 9 of the 10 cases submitted by the British Columbia. Avoid starting a sentence with a numeral.

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• The title of the article is a little jargony...
• Raw URLs in the references should be avoided - use {{cite web}}.
• More references are required here.
• Case Study. Overcap'ed and why indented?
• What makes that list of insects "important"?
• Don't put spaces between punctuation and references, per WP:CITE.
• ".[20]." rogue full stop after the citation.
• " 4 days old." - four days old.

That's a good start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber (talk · contribs)

• wow, weird choice of article but potentially fascinating.
• make sure all scientific names are italicized
• The lead summarises important points, such as the fact they are almost all diptera (flies)?
• I generally have common names with scientific names in parentheses afterwards. In any case, common names shouldn't be in double quotes.

I don't know enough about the subejct to no what else to add. Will look back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)