Wikipedia:Peer review/Lucilia illustris/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on our article and ideas for improvement. Please feel free to give any suggestions that you think would improve this article.
Thanks, Annemarye (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
SGGH
I suggest:
- expanding a lead, and including in-line citations, see WP:LEAD and WP:CITE
- Identification characteristics section needs citations throughout
- quantify information on conditions of ideal larva growth/habitat?
- external links section needed
- changes "refernces" section to "notes" and have a references section as a bibliography, a la Operation Camargue for example.
- with the blue links in the footnotes, fill in titles rather than leaving plain URLs
- are there more categories that can be included?
- expand "current research section" if possible
- any more images if possible?
Those are my suggestions, hope you find them helpful. SGGH speak! 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- A good way to lay the article out is Chrysiridia rhipheus which recently passed GA. I find the headings give a good framework where to add material. Thus lifecycle would go under behaviour and you could have a really interesting uses section for all the forensic stuff at the bottom. Once this is done, and some more detailed taxonomic section and description, and material expanded, we can look at the prose. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)