Wikipedia:Peer review/Use of DNA in forensic entomology/archive1
Use of DNA in forensic entomology edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would really like some additional feedback on the work.
Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article, in which I learned for example that bedbugs are hemiptera or true bugs. While it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this, and the author(s) are knowledgable about the subject, but it needs a lot of work to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style - see WP:MOS. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- The lead should be a summary of the entire article and should be 3 or 4 paragraphs for the length of this article. I try to include everything mentioned in a header in the lead as at least a word or phrase- see WP:LEAD
- Get rid of the conclusion, this is an encylopedia, not a term paper. It could be part of an introduction or even the lead.
- Blood meal extraction section reads like the abstract of a how to manual - while a general description of the process is fine, this level of detail seems a bit excessive here. The title is "Use of DNA...", not "How to extract DNA...". See WP:NOT too (not a manual)
- Get a copyedit - I read for content, but saw some issues such as missing spaces, broken degree C,
- The basic idea is that DNA from people is taken from insects, but this is not specifically mentioned until the third section - Haematophagous insects of forensic importance - this is asking a lot of the reader.
- Large chunks of this are lists - there are articles that are primarily lists - see WP:LIST, or the lists could be "prose-ified"
- There are some good examples of providing context for the reader, make sure to do this for all technical concepts and try to avoid jargon - see WP:PCR and WP:JARGON
- How about putting some images - surely there are some for the insects or DNA or even PCR?
- References need to be complete - list all authors, not just et al., identify the journal (not Science Direct), perhaps use {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}