Wikipedia:Peer review/Synthesiomyia nudiseta/archive1

Synthesiomyia nudiseta

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a school project and we would really appreciate any feedback.

Thanks, amahajan17 (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch comments

Undoubtedly a lot could be said about this article, but I'm going to limit myself to two important points:

• The opening paragraph is important because it explains in a finger-nail sketch not only what the subject is, but why there is an article about it. Most users won't read very far beyond the first few paragraphs -- all they are interested in is enough information to either (1) confirm what they already know, or (2) to provide a clarification of what a given topic is. Compared to these expectations, your article disappoints: the opening paragraph -- a single sentence -- merely states that S. nudiseta was first described by one Van der Wulp. To learn what an S. nudiseta is, I need to read further into the article, which suggests that it is a kind of house fly. (FWIW, the "nudiseta" part of the taxonomen made me think of nudibranch, so I wondered if it might be a sea slug.) So why not say that at the opening? But looking at housefly, I see that those are more usually a specimen of the species Musca domestica -- what is the difference between the two? Not until I read deep into the article do I discover what that difference is: it is a tropical fly which feeds on garbage & animal remains. So why not put all of that into the opening paragraph, for example: "Synthesiomyia nudiseta is the scientific name for a species of fly which feeds on garbage and animal remains. It is one of the largest of the Muscides."
• Your language is far too jargon-laden for the average Wikipedia reader. In the second paragraph alone words like "halteres", "calypters", "plumose 3 segmented aristae", and "sternopleural bristles" appear -- terms only an entomologist would recognize & understand. Yes, there should be a place for a technical description of this species, but so many of these words this close to the beginning of the article simply discourages the reader from reading any further.

For example of how to explain an insect in a far more approachable way, have a look at the Featured articles -- specifically Chrysiridia rhipheus, which is about a moth. In the opening 3 paragraphs, the reader learns about what it looks like, where it lives, & what is important about it. (C. rhipheus originally was misidentified as a butterfly.) And does this with a minimum of technical language; in three paragraphs, only three technical terms appear -- "junior synonyms", "setae", & "instars" -- of which only "junior synonym" requires an explanation (IMHO). I read the opening paragraphs of that Featured article, & feel confident that I won't confuse this species with a sea animal, as well as intrigued to read more about the subject.

At this point, rather than ask for feedback here (which might not focus on the content or the accuracy of your details), you should take the time to study several of the FAs & GAs on similar subjects & consider how they present their material. Then rewrite this one. Once you are satisfied with the rewrite, bring it back here for someone with an interest in insects to help you with the more technical parts. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)