Wikipedia:Peer review/Lucilia cuprina/archive1

Lucilia cuprina

 * 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 I would appreciate feedback in order to make this article better.

Thanks, Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Biggest problem as I see it is a near total lack of inline references, for example Habitats/Diet and Forensic Importance each have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Internet refs need URL, title, author
 * Drop the Conlcusion section - this is a Wikipedia article, not a term paper (even if it is written for a college assignment, it should follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style
 * Language needs to be cleaned up - for exmple something is either fatal or it is not, so "quite fatal" is not needed in The later emerging larvae cause large lesions on the sheep, which may prove to be quite fatal.
 * Be consistent throughout the article - is the name Lucilia cuprina or Lucilia cuprina or L. cuprina or what?
 * The article has many short )one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow - these shoiuld either be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * Refs come after punctuation, no space, and there is a space after the ref, so fix things like mesothorax is much enlarged while the prothorax and metathorax are reduced. [1]Blow flies
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but mesothorax is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Use convert to give both metric and English units.
 * 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

One quick idea of something to fix- change your headings. You only capitalize the first word, not all of them unless it is a proper noun. Another thing would be to change it from Ways to control an infestation to possibly management, or something a lot more concise. I'll read your entire article later with more ideas for you to fix! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)