Wikipedia:Peer review/Protophormia terraenovae/archive1

Protophormia terraenovae

 * 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 April 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd appreciate any feedback, specifically related to content quality and stylistics--I'm new to the Wikipedia world. Thanks!

Aggie2011nerd (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really quite good and it's clear you've done your research. A few suggestions: 1) The lead section should be expanded a bit to properly summarize the whole article in 3 paragraphs or so. 2) Include context for any jargon terms, myiasis comes to mind right away. The reader shouldn't have to read each linked article when a quick parenthetical explanation will do. 3) The Geographic distribution section is too North American focused. Try to expand it or refocus it to give the same level of detail around the globe. I realize that's hard depending on what your sources give you, but see what you can do. Also rewrite the second sentence of the second paragraph to make it's focus fit in better. For example In warm regions, appearance of this species is rare and mostly confined to the winter months. flows better with the paragraph than what is there. 4) Try to expand the medical importance section if it's importance justifies it. As it is, the paragraph and section barely stand on their own. 5) As Ruhrfisch helpfully pointed out, there is at least one insect featured article, Chrysiridia rhipheus, and while it has different important facets of the topic, consider what you can take from that article and use to improve this one. One thing that jumps out at me is that behavior is not covered in this article and if it is important at all, perhaps it should be included. That article isn't perfect, but see what else you can take from it. 6) Along with that idea, try to prioritize the most important subtopics and give the most important ones more space, the less important ones less so. Perhaps too much space is given to the Forensic subsection given it's relative importance to the topic. While it is very interesting, the article should be balanced. No need to lose the detail, you can create a subarticle and expand that or move it to another appropriate article if possible. Hope that helps. - Taxman Talk 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)