Wikipedia:Peer review/Megaselia scalaris/archive1

Megaselia scalaris
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because we would like some more input about our work.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&amp;M University (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As ever, non-expert comments, but some things that I noticed... That's a good start for you. Please ensure these comments are implemented across all of your entomological peer reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * Latin phrases I believe should be italicised, you and your students should be aware of Naming conventions (fauna).
 * Taxonomy section should be expanded and referenced.
 * What are flagellomere?
 * No need to use the same reference to cite every single consecutive sentence (e.g. [3] is used six times in eight sentences..., [7] is used seven times in seven sentences...)
 * En dash (–) should be used for numerical ranges. Again, use the WP:DASH as a guide for you and the students. Including page ranges in references.
 * What are setae?
 * Avoid 3-4 days, say three to four days instead.
 * Units need conversion so use the convert template to provide mm and inches, C and F etc.
 * Don't put spaces between punctuation and units (e.g. [6]) per WP:CITE).
 * Size images per WP:MOS


 * It is always useful to have a model article to work on and follow as a guide for organization and ideas on how to discuss the topic. Chrysiridia rhipheus is a recent Good Article and seems like a decent model for this one. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)