Wikipedia:Peer review/Haemaphysalis leporispalustris/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Haemaphysalis leporispalustris[edit]

Toolbox
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want my article to improve substantially. I believe some of the sections may be lacking and I am unsure if the opening at the top is correct. Please give me instruction on how I may improve this and what I need to improve other sections or if there is any section that needs to be added.

Thanks, EmilyAnneWood1995 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there; interesting choice of topic. Here are some things you may want to look into improving:

  • "H. leporispalustris is known to have one of the largest distributions for a New World." What does this mean? A New World tick?
  • wood tick is a disambiguation link. Which wood tick do you mean?
  • The article currently lacks a description section. We really need to see a description of the morphology of the species.
  • We also lack a taxonomy section. This would include details about the species's original description, any change of name/taxonomic controversies, an etymology of the name if possible, any synonyms and any information about its taxonomic placement.
  • Could you be more specific than "jackrabbit"? That just links back to hare.
  • I'd recommend referring to the species as Haemaphysalis leporispalustris rather than as a "rabbit tick".
  • "Strains of Rickettsia rickettsii, the disease aften of Rocky Mountain spotted fever have been found in the rabbit tick." I do not understand this.
  • A distribution section, detailing the kind of habitats in which the species is found as well as its range, would be an excellent addition.
  • Try to stick to the academic sources where possible!
  • As you asked about the lead section: the lead should accurately summarise the rest of the article. As such, it should not contain any information not found in the rest of the article, and so does not normally need any references.

I've made a few edits to the article, and hopefully my suggestions will give you an indication of what you need to do next. You've done some excellent work on the article so far, and, with a bit more work, this could become a good article- even better, I think it would be Wikipedia's first ever good article on a species of tick (though we do have one on a mite.) If I can be of any help, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or reply to me here. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

-(tJosve05a (c) 23:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)