Wikipedia:Peer review/Cochliomyia/archive1

Cochliomyia
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to recieve feedback on this article and any constructive criticism there is to give.

Thanks, Phodges09 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I learned a lot reading this article and it is clear a lot of work has been put into it, but 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; 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC) PS A model article to folloq is often very useful - I just saw at another review that Chrysiridia rhipheus is a recent Good article and as another insect article it should be a decent model here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would make sure that the article provides context for the reader (see WP:PCR). For example in the lead you explain that Calliphoridae are blowflies, but not that Diptera are flies.
 * If the common name is "New World screwworm fly", I would make that as a redirect page to this article (so if someone looks under that name, they find this).
 * Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article and not have anything in it that is not in the body of the article. My rule of thumb is that all sections and subsections should at least be mentioned in the lead, but I do not see Human management or Distribution 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. Phrases like The two main species we will focus on are ... and the whole Conclusions section are not encyclopedic.
 * The article is seriously under-referenced. For example the whole Human management section does not have a single reference. At a minimum, each paragraph should have a ref, as should all direct quotes, all statisctics, and any extraordinary claims. Please see WP:CITE.
 * The article is also under-linked and needs many more wikilinks.
 * Per the MOS, units should be in both metric and English units (not just mm). Try using convert.
 * Avoid jargon or explain it better - the halteres are explained nicely, but then we have sentences right after it like: When keying out a Dipteran specimen, it is important to first note whether bristles on the meron are present or absent. All species in the family Calliphoridae have bristles on their meron, plumose arista, and well developed calypters. What does keying out mean? Explain what meron, plumose arista, and calypters are.
 * I would also look at WP:NOT - parts of the article read like a field manual for identifying these screwflies, but I am not sure that a "how to manual" is needed or appropriate in this article.
 * Try to avoid needless repetition - if something applies to both species discussed, why not have some sort of common characteristics section and discuss it there?
 * The Characteristics section subheaders could just be "Adult" and "Larvae" (that these are characteristics has already been established). Similarly, why not just omit the "General information" subheaders (not the info) from the two species descriptions? If there is no subheader, I think readers will know it is General information.
 * Why not some info on the other two species?