Talk:Medical entomology

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medical entomology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814060302/http://www.entsoc.org/Pubs/Periodicals/JME/index.htm to http://www.entsoc.org/pubs/periodicals/jme/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223171117/http://icb.usp.br/~marcelcp/ to http://icb.usp.br/~marcelcp/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.euro.who.int/__dat

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions

I like where this article is going. Just a few suggestions, I think it would be helpful to remove the sentence beneath the title heading “Insects of medical importance” (Medical entomologists work in the public health arena, dealing with insects (and other arthropods) that parasitize people, bite, sting, and/or vector disease). It seems unrelated to the heading and furthermore, the idea of this sentence is captured in the introduction.

I agree. I like the way this article is set up. Mikemedina1 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Are there in text citations that could be added?

Thoughts about adding Zika to the list of major insect-borne disease?

Mtsuha (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to include information about some of the research that was conducted using insects having being transmitted to a human? along with the origin of the Medical Entolomolgy? — HL01378 (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Great article, but there is some things to be wary about.

• Typo in "personal pests" where it says "some personal pests of may vector pathogens". I'd also like to know why those pests are "vector pathogens".

• The link for "all three branches of the US military" is out of date and doesn't link to a webpage. It also doesn't pertain to the webpage referring to medical entomology.

Kmakuaka (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)kmakuaka

== Article Evaluation ==

There are not a lot of example usages for insects in this article. I would like to see more detail as well as how entomology is used to combat such insects for both humans and animals. A more detailed description about the veterinary aspect would help solidify the article to make it more useful information for someone studying the subject. Overall it is a good article but some improvements could be made to the overall strength. Hjo2d (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Overall a good article. There isn’t, that I could tell, any bias or any statements that benefit anybody. I don’t know much about Entomology or Medical Entomology, but I could understand what was being said, which is a good thing. Hailey20Wilson20 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Hailey20Wilson20

Suggestions

• The wording in the introductory paragraph, specifically in the last few sentences, is very confusing.
• Should there be a citation after the statistic about more people dying from insect-related illnesses than in battles?

Egustav1 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Medical entomology

Overall, this article is well written. It is concise and contains a lot of information, but doesn't say too much extra information that clogs the article. Something that distracted me in the article was the reference to the "three branches of the military." I feel this takes away from the main point of the article: medical entomology. Everything in the article is neutral and factual rather than someone's opinion. There are a couple links to other wikipedia pages that haven't been written at all, so these links could be taken out. The first citation is probably a credible source, but you have to pay for access to the original article, so it is virtually impossible for the normal public to access this. The other references have good links and are viewable to everyone. Most everything on this article's talk page is positive and everything noted seems to have been fixed in the article.

Amsmiley16 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Areas for improvement:

It seems like this article has not been radically touched up for a while. The last few sentences of the first paragraph of the lead are still confusingly worded, and I'm not sure it's necessary or relevant to the rest of the article. There are certain sections that could be added written as maybe one to two sections (for example, why separate these insects into their own individual sections). Some of the headings may also be confusing as I'm not sure as to what distinguishes certain insects as "personal pests" and others as something different. Unless the term "personal pests" is what these insects can be grouped under formally, I would not make the distinction. There could be sections detailing additional history of medical entomology as well as details of the profession. Some of the images make the lead's layout somewhat strange and off-center, and the content box seems to be weirdly to the right of the left margin. Overall, I think the base information is well implemented, but the organization and wording can be confusing/inconsistent. There could be more links to the references and sources used as well. Dlu16 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Areas for improvement:

What is the article's overall status? The article is overall good. The article's strengths is that it is concise and neutral. However, the article can expand its contents into greater details. MCT98 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the article is enjoyable to read and was really well thought out. I think that it can be improved with a bit more information. Using sources based on new data and findings would definitely strengthen the page. All the sources are definitely related to the page but they should include new articles as well. LuzAreliContreras (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I really like the idea of this page and shape is taking. Although, I might have some suggestions to take into account. Regarding references referring to a book instead of a scientific paper; it is recommendable to add the pages and chapter where this information was found in the book, this way users that are interested in the text cited can dig deeper into this topic. Another suggestion regarding the how the article is divided, I think the animals you cite "cockroach" and "Housefly" should be included a subtitle of "Personal pests" instead of having their own title. I think this way the page would look more round and better structured. MY last suggestion would be to include some pharmacological advances related to the field and how medical entomologists are tackling new infection diseases. Great page overall, adds visibility to the discipline and has a good structure. --Lleveness (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

2620:0:2820:2229:E129:DE28:1DCF:E001 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Very interesting article! There are however a lot of sources that are around 20 years of age and so it could use some more current material. Also I think there may be more to say about these different pests and their effects on public health both currently and in history, although that may be covered in their respective pages.

Article Evaluation

• I found the title verbiage to be confusing. The article mentions, "The discipline of medical entomology, or public health entomology, and also veterinary entomology is focused upon insects and arthropods that impact human health." At first, I thought all three terms were used interchangably. The provided distinction between medical and veterinary entomology was not helpful because we were not given specific definitions. The article never went on to tell us more about these branches aside from the opening paragraph. I think there should be separate Wikipedia pages for each branch, or there should be better definitions of their parameters in the body.
• The photos captions are not helpful. There is an image of Aedes albopictus but it does not mention that it causes Dengue Fever. There is also an image of a U.S. Navy Medical Entomologist studying insects. The article does not go into instrumental methods of studying insects so I do not see the relevance of this photo.
• The citations were mostly out of date. There were two citations from 2018, but the vast majority of them were dated, with a number from the 70s and early 2000s. However, the citation links work and come from reliable sources (CDC, scholarly journals, etc).
• I wish the organizational structure of the body was more consistent. While it is helpful that the author(s) mention the mode of transmission for the "Insects of medical importance" tab, there are gaps. I think it would be helpful to know what areas and activities are risk factors for associations with these insects/arthropods. I also do not think the "Insect-Borne Diseases" tab is informative as it only has hyperlinks and mentions death rates. It is also difficult to read as it uses too many scientific names without providing context.
• Overall this article seems neutral and the sources are credible. However, there organizational issues and lack of elaboration are distracting and hinder understanding of medical entomology. I also agree with other evaluators: pharmaceutical remedies, history, and clarity should be provided to enhance reader understanding.

Pebenisr (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)