Wikipedia:Peer review/Megaselia scalaris/archive1

Megaselia scalaris[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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&M University (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

As ever, non-expert comments, but some things that I noticed...

Latin phrases I believe should be italicised, you and your students should be aware of Wikipedia: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#Images

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)[reply]

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 _><>°^° 20:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]