The article on Nicrophorus nepalensis is good overall. It is well-organized and succinct, and is written in a neutral tone with reliable academic sources. I think the following edits would make it even better:
1. The lead section is straight-forward. I’d suggest supplementing the geographic description of the beetle’s range with a shaded map. This would improve clarity and rapidly present the reader with this information.
2. The description gets highly specific. Maybe first explain the beetle in laymen’s terms before diving into technical language? I’d suggest a first sentence in this section aimed at people that are not biologists that explains it’s an insect, has 6 legs + 2 antennae, etc., is X cm long. Then after that you can use jargon.
3. For the jargon, can you link more of these terms to existing Wikipedia entries or dictionary entries? Words/phrases including fascia, frons, clypeus, post-ocular bulge, pro-notal, diapause may not be known by many readers.
4. Can you add a picture or two of the beetle?
5. Two small grammar changes: a. Last sentence under “Description” uses articles that could be improved. I’d suggest two small edits, rewriting as “Pronotal width is a common measurement of beetle size, and adult…” b. Similarly, a few very minor grammar changes to these two sentences, change to: "Carcasses are crucial resources for reproduction, as beetles deposit eggs around a buried carcass which their larval broods can feed on.[3] Fresh carcasses are rare in the wild due to intense competition from the same or different species..."
6. The last paragraph (about carcass meat) appears to be under “Photoperiod” but is not directly related to that (I think)? Maybe for clarity change the heading of this section to “Factors that impact survival” or something broader than just photoperiod?
7. References look thorough and are from good sources, and appear to be properly formatted.
No major changes, just all of the above small things. Good job! E3B-DM (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)