Wikipedia:Peer review/Megaselia scalaris/archive1

Megaselia scalaris edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like some more input about our work.


Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

As ever, non-expert comments, but some things that I noticed...

  • Latin phrases I believe should be italicised, you and your students should be aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna).
  • Taxonomy section should be expanded and referenced.
  • What are flagellomere?
  • No need to use the same reference to cite every single consecutive sentence (e.g. [3] is used six times in eight sentences..., [7] is used seven times in seven sentences...)
  • En dash (–) should be used for numerical ranges. Again, use the WP:DASH as a guide for you and the students. Including page ranges in references.
  • What are setae?
  • Avoid 3-4 days, say three to four days instead.
  • Units need conversion so use the {{convert}} template to provide mm and inches, C and F etc.
  • Don't put spaces between punctuation and units (e.g. [6]) per WP:CITE).
  • Size images per WP:MOS#Images

That's a good start for you. Please ensure these comments are implemented across all of your entomological peer reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]