Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Entomopathogenic nematode/archive1

Entomopathogenic nematode[edit]

This article is amazingly well written and interesting. Its easy to understand and the pictures used in the article are all of high standard, it meets the criteria perfectly.

Nom and Support --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm a bit concerned about copyvios with this though, as Image:Epn_life_cycle.gif comes from http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/pathogens/nematodes.html, for example, but that image there appears to be copyrighted... besides that it seems like a "gem" to me :) RN 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mind Harvard referencing, but can you convert the references and inline citations to {{Harvard reference}} and {{Harvard citation}}, respectively? That way, readers can click on the inline citation and it brings the reader down to the "References" section. Andy _t 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first sentence is horribly confusing. Reading Entomopathogenic nematodes are soil-inhabiting, lethal insect parasites that belong to the phylum Nematoda, commonly called roundworms, if I personally didn't know better, I would think that ENs are lethal parastic insects from the phylum nematoda. Try phrasing it Entomopathogenic nematodes are sopecies in the phylum Nematoda that specialise in parastising insects, so that who is parastising what is clear. Wikilink some more in the intro for the benefit of those without a background in biology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Infobox is necessary. Inline referencing should be fixed as made into hyperlinks. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are fully in line with what policy dictates. Raul654 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. First, page numbers in inline citations are necessary. Second, (though less importantly), using the Harvard reference templates would be much appreciated and make the references much more useable for readers. --Robth^Talk 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]