Wikipedia:Peer review/Chrysomya bezziana/archive1

Chrysomya bezziana

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because we are new to Wikipedia and would like others to edit our article and see how it stands against Wikipedia standards. I would like others to double check our grammar, tell us how the content flows and let us know if there are any changes we could make to improve our article in content and/or for Wikipedia's standards. Thanks very much for your time! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a good start indeed&mdash;great in fact since you're new to Wikipedia. I tweaked the lead section a little, but here are a few suggestions you can work with. 1) Work to make paragraphs complete ideas. Either merge short paragraphs (1-3 sentences or so) with other related material or research to find new information to expand the paragraph. 2) As you expand the article continue to prioritize your coverage by giving the most space and detail to the most important aspects of the topic. Good research helps with this since you can see the various topics that various sources find important, but you still have to work out the big picture. I don't see anything that says you're not doing this now, it's just easy to lose sight of. 3) The lead section (See WP:LEAD for more guidance) should be a bit longer and an ideal lead section is basically a perfect summary of the more detailed information in the rest of the article. 4) Finally make sure to include context for as much of the jargon or as many of the technical terms used as possible. For example the first time myiasis is referred to is should be followed by a parenthetical remark describing approximately what it is. Incidentally right now the articles first use of the word myiasis refers to other species instead of describing how this fly relates to myiasis. I hope that helps. Just to let you know, peer review doesn't always result in much editing from others of your article. Since you have the relevant sources and knowledge guidance is often the best help we can give. - Taxman Talk 03:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your review! You've definitely given us ideas and things to work on.  Thank you very much for taking the time to read it! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)