Wikipedia:Peer review/Chrysomya rufifacies/archive1

Chrysomya rufifacies
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review in order to get some feedback on how to improve the format, content, and layout of the article. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Motoliyat (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from

 * A good way to lay the article out is Chrysiridia rhipheus which recently passed GA. I find the headings give a good framework where to add material. Thus lifecycle would go under behaviour and you could have a really interesting uses section for all the forensic and economic stuff at the bottom. Once this is done, and some more detailed taxonomic section and description, and material expanded, we can look at the prose. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that having a model article to follow would be a great idea. On reading this article I learned a lot and while it is clear a lot of work has been put into it, it needs a lot more work to more closely follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions: I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would make "hairy maggot blowfly" (the common name) a redirect page to this article (that way if someone looks under that name, they find this).
 * See WP:PCR - make sure that the article provides context for the reader. I would also avoid jargon or explain it better - see WP:JARGON. For example the tubercules on the larvae are (I imagine) what gives it the name "hairy maggot blowfly" so explain that. Or make clearer what the peritreme of the posterior spiracle is on the larva.
 * Per the MOS, units should be in both metric and English units (not just mm). Try using convert for these.
 * Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article and not have anything in it that is not in the body of the article. This lead is very short. My rule of thumb is that all sections and subsections should at least be mentioned in the lead, but I do not see medical or economic importance in the lead (for example).
 * Please read the Manual of Style at WP:MOS - this is an article for an encyclopedia and not a term paper or research paper for publication in a journal. The whole Conclusions section is not encyclopedic.
 * The article is under-linked and needs many more wikilinks.
 * The three Importance sections are all breif and repeat the word importance - why not make an Importance section and make subheaders on Medical, Economic, and Forensic?

We will consider all of these suggestions in order to improve the article. Thank you for taking the time to review this article and we appreciate your suggestions. Motoliyat (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)