Talk:Entomotoxicology

Entomotoxicology received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 21 March 2008. Further details are available here.

Suggestion[edit]

I really like this article. It's chalk full of information that I did not know about. However, the page as a whole is pretty bland. Is there any way to add some pictures? Some of the sections would seem to lend towards visual aid, but there is not any in your article. Bmb4516 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define what "internal standard solution" is, or link to it. In the "Effects of Toxins" section, it might be more useful and more helpful to divide the section by type of toxin to allow easier comprehension and location of information for the reader. For how technical and complex the subject matter is, I think you did a pretty good job making it somewhat understandable for the lay-person. The case studies were interesting and effective at illustrating the importance of this new technique in crime solving. Giving some external links to companies or research programs performing this type of work might be helpful and informative. Overall excellent work!entogirl88 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article was interesting and very informative. It did drag a little in the beginning though. Good use of examples! I made a few grammar corrections. Also, under the "Effects of toxins on arthropods" section the last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation.Ento431ke (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)ento431ke[reply]

Excellent job on the article, the only thing I would like is probably a few pictures on some of the insects you discussed. But other then that I like it. Ladydiva04 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Ladydiva04[reply]

Very thorough article, well researched and on an interesting subject. Found a small typo, but corrected it. The part dealing with techniques might be slightly too technical for some, but I don't know if it would be too difficult to simplify. --Tipitow88 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, very informative, I especially like the part about what the effects of different drugs are on inhabiting insects. The only addition I can see is to include current, on-going research on the subject since it is fairly new and just beginning to be used. Greg09Ag (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on this artice, very well written and organized. I especially like how you guys provided more than just a couple examples of how cases were employed using this technique. Adding pictures would improve the overall look of the page, but you guys have done a good job on the article overall. Azayed34 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good and unique topic. Very interesting. We had some trouble finding information and research for our topic too because it was also a new and upcoming aspect of forensic entomology. Good job though and well organized. -Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runwild2006 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fascinating subject! The body of the article as it stands right now, however, is in three large chunks. For readability, you might want to break them up into smaller subsections. Good luck on the assignment! – Clockwork Soul 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was really intrigued by the topic of the article. It has been well-written. However, I feel that it could use some breaking down into smaller more compact sections. For instace, under the section about famous cases involving entomotoxicology, you could include subheadings or titles for every case. It would make it more organized. garza_j_e (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is intriguing. You have done a really good job. I just wanted to recommend that you add some external links at the end for readers to find out more information on your topic. --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material is interesting, and obviously, you guys have done your research. Just a couple of suggestions. Under 'Cases employing entomotoxicology,' you open with 'Beyer and partners' - with no previous mention of Beyer, I have no idea who he/she is. Perhaps give more background information about Beyer - or simply a first name. Also, some pictures would be a nice touch! Good luck! --Gdespejo (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on your page; it might be a little easier for other readers to understand the subject however, if less complicated words were used. Also, as the above comment stated, some pictures would be nice- maybe comparing the sizes of instars after they have fed on tissues contaminated with various drugs.. just an idea. Csb14 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions for your article. On the second to last line of the first page is it supposed to say acid or acidic? Also under Effects of toxins on arthropods in the second paragraph first line…were found the increase the…maybe put to in place of the so that it makes more sense. Also in the third paragraph of the same section the third line down it says….of cocaine in the area being feed upon. I think you might have meant to put fed instead of feed. Thanks. --Jordanmurphy (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great and is very informative. The only thing that I can see room for improvement is under the section "cases employing entomotoxicology". There's one huge chunk of paragraphs. Is there any way you could split them up with subtitles? I've come to notice that it's more appealing to readers. This way they know more specificly what they're going to spend five minutes reading than just "cases employing entomotoxicology". I hope that you will find this useful and helpful. Best of luck! Lindseyjean11 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) --lindseyjean[reply]

Article looks good. It's a little technical, but it's a technical topic, so that's expected. I took the liberty of linking "deionized" to the appropriate Wikipedia reference (deionized). Very informative article. Noromaru (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very well-written article with a great length. The only suggestion I can propose is possibly putting subheadings in the case study section. This would make this section more readable and could also make it look more wikipedia-esque. Great job! AMFaris (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks really good. Its length and details are great. Its very specific on sub-headings and elaboration which makes it clear and easy to read. Pictures, I don't know if there are any for this topic, but they should maybe be included. (Medillar (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Out of all the articles I have read so far, this has been the MOST interesting. As a student interested in pharmacology, my attention was kept throughout the entire article. Although this is a newer field, I feel that this will grow exponentially in determining the numerous factors in a forensic case. I was especially glad to see a good amount of real life cases. This always makes an article easier to read and more practical to everyday life. I feel that your article is very strong and should be featured in article of the month!(Jaycewright (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Great article! Very well written and very informative. I'm guessing that the numbers that are superposed are the references for the article. It may be helpful to link all of them to the links at the bottom of the page for people to reference. Galaga180 (talk)

Great article. But pictures would be great, especially of shed casings and insect feces. It would be interesting for people reading this article to see how that looks like.Sabm05mval05 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well written article. What are the different toxins included in entomotoxicology? The only thing I noticed was that the Current or Future Research is missing from the article. Pns2010 (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most interesting article I’ve read. It’s beautifully composed and offers detailed information. I was wondering about PMI determination. What determines is specimens are sent off to be tested for toxins? If substances have such an affect on PMI it would seem beneficial to make toxicology tests an investigation standard, especially in urban areas. However, that wouldn’t be very practical, would it? What qualifies a dead body for testing? One quick thing, I think you have a typo under “Analytical techniques”- “differs” should be “differ.” Wudntulyk2no (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a VERY interesting and well-written article. One of the best I've read so far. I was especially intrigued on how toxins affect development rates. Are there no external links that can be added so that us readers can find out more if wanted? Great great job! Sasquash128 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your topic highly interesting, and I feel you did a pretty thorough job of explaining a relatively new subject. However, I feel that your section "Effect of Toxins on Arthropods" could be reworked to flow smoother. For example, a more concise explanation of each drug would improve the flow (rather than going back and forth between the drugs). Also, you could include toxins such as the mercury example in this section. The only other thing I can think of is you might want to include a section for "conclusions" and "current research" as mentioned in Professor Brundage's grading rubric for this assignment. Good luck!--Amb8786 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very interesting article. To see the advancements science has made to solve crimes is astounding. Using examples at the end was a great way to show how entomotoxicology is used in the field. A concern I had while reading the article was that in the “Example Cases” section, the terminology seemed to be advanced for an average person. For example, maybe add a link about what a GC-MS technique is and how it is used. One last thing is that you might want to consider adding a paragraph at the end to sum up everything that you talked about so that it doesn’t end abruptly. Other than that, I thought the article was very well written and contains information that I know will continue to grow in the future. JessicaD128 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed this article! It is very thorough and well written. The only suggestion i have for the article, as i read in another student's comment, is that pictures should be added. I think it would really enrich the article! All in all I give you two thumbs up! :) --Dmhenry1216 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked this article a lot. Before reading this article I knew little about Entomotoxicology, however thanks to yall I learned something new. I think the article was put together great. I too feel that maybe yall could add some color to the page to keep readers interested. All together it was really informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustinray52 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written well and even interesting, but im afraid its going to scare readers. What I mean is it’s so much information with out a buffer like photos, diagrams, and graphs things that open the page up, and eases the readers eyes. Now granted there is not a lot of photos or diagrams you could use, but I am sure there are a few. Overall I really liked the information. Jword 09 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very informative article but the vocabulary gets a little to difficult for some to enjoy. Real life examples made it intersting to read. good paper Jdritchey4 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome awesome awesome. This was a topic which I did not know existed, making your wiki page very educational. It is full of great detail and very well written. I am a picky person and could not find a thing to change. Jword stated this topic might "scare the readers"... He is right but I found it much more interesting than scary, great work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcarriker5 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustments needed[edit]

Someone who is really familiar with footnotes should regularize their use in this article. Footnote 1 is referenced several times. The first time is done with the usual reference command language, but several subsequent references to it are done with manual entry of a superscript numeral one ^[1]. As a result, should anyone else add a reference in front of that first time, the subsequent references to [1] will be wrong. I know there must be a way of dealing in command language with multiple references to the same citation, but I don't know how to do it. Pzavon (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that user:Mangostar has provided the requested fix, along with several other helpful modifications. Thanks. Pzavon (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]