Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Insect indicators of abuse or neglect/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it fits the criteria as an encyclopeadic article and if so how well. I would also like to know if the article is informative and understandable.


Thanks, Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. She had developed pressure spots where her head had been resting on her chest for long periods of time - head on chest ? is that possible ? Perhaps it is hand.
  2. 9 of the 10 cases submitted by the British Columbia. Avoid starting a sentence with a numeral.
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • The title of the article is a little jargony...
  • Raw URLs in the references should be avoided - use {{cite web}}.
  • More references are required here.
  • Case Study. Overcap'ed and why indented?
  • What makes that list of insects "important"?
  • Don't put spaces between punctuation and references, per WP:CITE.
  • ".[20]." rogue full stop after the citation.
  • " 4 days old." - four days old.

That's a good start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • wow, weird choice of article but potentially fascinating.
  • make sure all scientific names are italicized
  • The lead summarises important points, such as the fact they are almost all diptera (flies)?
  • I generally have common names with scientific names in parentheses afterwards. In any case, common names shouldn't be in double quotes.

I don't know enough about the subejct to no what else to add. Will look back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]