Wikipedia:Peer review/Blow-fly/archive1

Blow-fly

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'd like as much input as possible.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments:

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.
Make sure the lead summarizes the whole article per WP:LEAD, for example there is no mention of the list of species in North America in the lead.
Also make sure the lead has no material not elsewhere in the article (Shakespeare does not seem to be listed again).
The article is seriously under-referenced. For example the whole Diversity section does not have a single reference. At a minimum, each paragraph should have a ref, as should all direct quotes, all statisctics, and any extraordinary claims. Please see WP:CITE.
The article is also under-linked and needs many more wikilinks.
Per the MOS, units should be in both metric and English units (not just mm). Try using {{convert}}.
Avoid jargon or explain it better.
Nice pictures
Try to avoid really short sections like the one sentence "Disease" section "Adults may vector pathogens of diseases such as dysentery."
The "Identification" section should be in the references
Use references and not direct external links in the text. For example, To view actual cases where maggot therapy is used go to: http://www.ucihs.uci.edu/som/pathology/sherman/cases.htm, or the four links at the end of "Characteristics"
Generally good job providing context and explaining jargon - makes it easier for the average reader - thanks.
Reliable sources need to be published in some form - ref 1 appears to be lecture notes from a class (for which this article is being written) and does not seem to be reliable. You could reference the textbook (if you have one)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]