Talk:Insect development during storage

Untitled

This was a really great article but I think there could have been a little more information on the negative and positive temperature morgues. Other than that good job!--Lmconine168 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is very good I think it might would fit with Environmental effects of Forensic Entomology and also that you could have linked to the Patient and Mortuary Neglect page that I assisted with in the Mortuary section of you article. Jdpage (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the title should be geared toward, "How morgue storage and autopsy procedures influence insect development and insect collection from Forensic Entomologist." Karmijo37, April 15th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmijo37 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your heading should be more structured and organized possibly. I feel like I am just reading an essay. The material is great and I appreciate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdkws1986 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Insect development during morgue storage and autopsy procedures

Hey guys--I got this comment on my talk page today about your article:

I came across this article because it was nominated for peer review, so I thought that I would review it (peer review comments are here). While I applaud your efforts at trying to get Wikipedia into the classroom, and to get students to actually contribute to articles instead of attempting to cite it as a source, or plagiarize from it, I have serious concerns that the students working on this particular article just don't "get it". The paper in question is really just a term paper, and written in that style. It's not an encyclopedia article, and I am failing to understand why this topic is important to the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article is NOT a term paper, mostly because of the style of writing; an encyclopedia article must be informative, complete, and written from a neutral point of view. Most college term papers actually encourage a more persuasive style of writing, and I think if students are to learn how to effectively collaborate and write articles for Wikipedia, they need to break out of this mode of writing (see WP:NPOV for Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy).

Your students also need to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and not something else that you give them in class. And as their professor, you should be teaching them this manual of style. If you publish material in an academic, peer-reviewed journal, you're expected to adhere to that journal's style guidelines, and not something else. The same thing should apply to Wikipedia. The article in question does not even come close to adhering to WP:MOS.

I notice that you mentioned the featured article process on your course page. One thing that you should take a closer look at is the Featured article criteria, which outlines four specific criteria that all FAs must adhere to. It would be good to make sure that your students understand this criteria, as it goes hand-in-hand with the manual of style. There's also another article review process as well; the Good article process. GAs have a similar set of six criteria, though it is a little less stringent than FA. It might be worth mentioning this as an option to your students since it sometimes takes less time to go through a GA review than a full FA review.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Take this feedback very seriously, and make the changes he suggests. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

More specific areas are, of course, in the peer review. While I do apologize a little if my comments are a bit harsh, I do have to stand by the manual of style and the issues with the article. That being said, I do want to commend the students for going out and nominating the article for peer review. This does show a certain commitment and desire to listen to the criticism of others, which is quite important. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing your article, I feel that either a different title or possible merge into a similar related site would be beneficial. The title is very specific and may never be found when searching for anything in this field. However, your information you provide is great and very well organized. I was looking at the Autopsy page and thought your subject may fit in there nicely, or at least linking to your page from inside there. --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the temperature threshold section, did you mean to say thicker parts of the body that cool more slowly, because as it is you are saying the parts that cool faster, which doesn't seem to make sense. Colstewart71639 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be beneficial to the reader if you explained the difference between the roles of a forensic entomologist and a pathologist. While you mention that they go in conjunction with one another, most people might be confused as to what the difference is between the two. If you could go a little more in depth about the roles of the forensic entomologist and the pathologist and how they work with each other that would be great. Thanks! (Lamanda14 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

I noticed that there is a section about the history of forensic entomology. There is a section on the history of forensic entomology on the forensic entomology home page, which is a little bit more detailed then the one on this page. I would suggest placing a link to it if you want to cover the history of forensic entomology. Also, alot more sources need to be cited in the article.Ngjon87 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well as the person before me stated, I would probably take out the history of forensic entomology section. It really doesn't fit in with the topic you are covering. You also mentioned the portions of the body that cools slower, but didn't give any examples. Maybe you could give examples of those portions of the body, because personally I don't really know what parts of the body that would be. Although I would imagine it would be the more muscular parts of the body. And finally, I didn't know what biometry was when I first came across it in your article, so I had to look it up. There is an article in wikipedia about biometry, maybe you could make it a link. There might be more people that don't know what that means. But overall your article is really good. I enjoyed reading it. Like my old high school teacher said, "it's long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to keep it interesting." (Mexicanspaniard1 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Overall good article. I think you should make the part about the positive/negative temperatures just into a paragraph rather than having it sectioned like that. If you want to leave it sectioned, I would suggest adding more details and expanding somehow (but I don't know if that would be possible). Also, I'm not sure about the history of forensic entomology being relevant. I would suggest linking to another article for that (because I've seen the history on several other articles). Other than that, I thought it was a good article. Annemarye (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In general I found this article to be very informative. I never actually took much thought on the effect that mortuary temperatures could take a toll on bodies. This could truly alter evidence and cause issues when determining PMI. Great article! (Orb80cool (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Initially, I was attracted to the title of this article, and very intrigued to read about a topic I have never heard any information about. I think you guys had a great idea, probably better than any of the other article topics, but I'm not sure this article was executed well. It seems to take entirely too long to get to the meat of the article, and the stuff before seems just to be thrown in there for extra bulk. The areas that did actually talk about insects in body bags and what not was very interesting though. The article could use some research and editing, but I think it could be a great piece. Pinksugar85 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

some suggestions...

Just TWO things::

First, your title seems a little long-winded... Nobody's ever gonna get so specific with a search. Maybe go from "Insect development during mortuary storage and autopsy procedures" to::

"Insect development after collection" Consider it...

Second, I don't think your mortuary section is long enough to be divided like that. It would be best if you just put the information you have (the +/- temps) into one or more paragraphs. The big, bold headlines make it look choppy. Cvela (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The title sounds 100X better. I'm glad you changed it. --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has lots of interesting information and it is a very unique topic. It seems like you could have incorporated more information though somehow, like perhaps a current or future research section, and have that be the title of your concluding paragraph. Your current conclusion seems a little out of place or random, maybe more research paper like than encyclopedia like.Cenire (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an idea, under the title "Forensic entomology today," you could write something about how T.V. has brought about more public awareness of what forensic entomology through shows like CSI in the recent years. Tam712004686 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AND... Titles are hard. It's really difficult to package your whole article into one or two words that really describe what you are writing about. Our article is the same way. If you title it incorrectly then someone that needs or is intrested in the information will not get to it because of clarity of title. Who has that job, editors? I guess we need editors to write really succinct clear titles. Good article overall.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the fact that the title of the article was condensed. A longer title may have caused people to loose interest in the subject. The new title is short yet it still gets the point across. This is a really great topic. Usually, the first thing that comes to mind concerning this subject is a forensic entomologist collecting insect specimens from the corpse at the scene. However, the retrieval of insects from a body at a later time is also very important. This article is very informative and the other side of insect collection is represented well. I also enjoyed the addition of the pictures. After reading the article, I came up with a few suggestions. In the last sentence of the introduction, I think that the wording should be changed to "forensic entomologist in conjuction with the pathologist". Under the 'History of forensic entomology' section, the date in the seventh sentence is placed rather awkwardly. Hope these suggestions are helpful. Good luck! --Kmcneese (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your paper is great because of detail discussion the infestation of levels of the insects on the decaying bodies. Although the only thing I would add is more links to the negative and positive changes on the body section and the effects of the body section.Cedric14 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a great article, although it strayed a little of topic. This an encylopedia article so including the history of forensic entomology feels a little out of place to me.Micha259 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)