Talk:Entomological evidence collection

[Untitled]

I thought this article did a good job explaining the entomological evidence collection. It was good how the each of the items in the collection kit was described and not just listed. The collecting specimens section was categorized in a way that enabled readers that were not as knowledge to be able easily understand the material. The Cases presented were very useful in showing how vital various insects are when found in crime scenes.(June21st86 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

In the intro change put a comma after "if" in "if for example". Also, you use the phrase "great care" way too much. Think of another way to phrase this idea...maybe "carefully" or something of that nature. In general the writing style and word choice is somewhat informal and, at times, does not seem very encyclopedia-like. However, the extreme detail as far as material and procedures for entomological collection is excellent. Thank you for including case studies! I feel like I could go outside right now and solve some crime! As usual, more pictures would definitely augment your article.entogirl88 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Alot of great material and work have gone into this paper, great job. I think you could improve it however with turning the bulleted section at the beginning into more of a paragraph or just simply more organized looking. Other than that it seems great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdkws1986 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good summation of the common procedures. The only thing I can offer is to include actual technique in the form of illustrations, The textbook for the class has several good examples and any artist can help you out. Other than that, great job! 165.91.58.67 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting article! However, there are many spelling and grammatical errors in this article, to the point of distraction. There are also places where this article is very vague, such as in the Temperature, Weather, and Climate section and the Pupa section. More links to other articles might help to alleviate this. Other than that, awesome topic! --Moosenik (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe go into a little more detail on collection and add more pictures and figures so the reader can get a better grasp on the topic. Other than that, the article was real interesting. Dbw279 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. It looks nice except there are no links to other articles on wikipedia. Try this link for an easy way to link some popular terms in your article.[1] Also, you have your sources cited, but not using wikipedia's formatting . Try this for some help on citing things properly, or I can help you out. It isn't that difficult once you get the hang of it. --PinDr4gon (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey this page looks amazing! Couple quick areas of improvement: try to divide up the long list of materials (don't get rid of any of them!) if possible. For example, make 2 columns of information one possibly containing materials necesarry for collection and the other for preservation? Just an example. Also, the picture you have is rather large, which is taking away from the content a bit. If you can resize it and upload it again I think I would make a difference. As always, looking great! --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey the article looks good, but I made a few inserts. I added sticky traps and a thermos of boiling water to your list of materials; as well as elaborating on the use of sticky traps in the collection of adult insects. Austinh37 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The list of materials used in a collection kit is very detailed, great job. You might want to look at some of the phrasing in this section. There are some grammatical errors, missing uppercase letters, and some poor usage of punctuation (a few missed or unnecessary periods). AMFaris (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very detailed article and describes the life of a forensic entomologist on duty as vividly as I could imagine it but I do have one question. There is alot of detail concerning the collection of larvae, pupa, adult, etc. but it never quite specifies if there is a specific order in which they should be collected. Does it matter if you collect adults first? Or larvae first? Good job on all yalls hard work! Keep it up! --Cal101387 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting article, defenately have an idea and wont be lost when I sart to collect my evidence for lab (432). Maybe article can be a little more flowing and not so choppy. Many grammatical errors, to note one in the labeling section, second sentence after 'following' have a ":" or a "-". Agbetty (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.32.49 (talk)

I like how this article is very detailed and all the sections are clearly labeled. More pictures might make things seem a little more interesting, especially when it comes to the 'Collection Materials' section. Pictures of the different types of equipment might be a good addition. Also, the fact that you listed the tools with bullets was great, but the grammar and punctuation needs a little bit of work. You might want to use parentheses when describing the use of certain tools so the individual bullets aren't as lengthy. Just a thought. Other than that, this article was great! I enjoyed reading it! --Sweetypie2305 (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is well written. It gives a thorough and detail procedure for collecting specimen and samples for evidence. Any reader will agree that they feel more knowledgeable about the collection process when dealing with an investigation. One suggestion I would make is for the author to either give a vocabulary list of the some of the technical terms, or give the definitions in the sentence. Context clues helped provide a greater understanding, but having the definitions available would provide for a facilitated reading.Heathcj (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well-written article, however, I believe having a conclusion at the end of the article violates the general format standards of Wikipedia. Perhaps, “Importance” would be a title more descriptive of the actual contents of the paragraph. Also, the article contains captions for figures that do not actually appear in the article. Furthermore, additional information on “Current research” would be helpful.Catgirl357 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good job on your article. It was long but informative. I really liked how you did the pictures in your article to help explain some of the many detailed processes that forensic ivestagators have to go through. The numbers that went along with the figures also made your article seem like an expert in the field was writing it. great job. Jared Jcdvipertx2000 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the article! It has a lot of information. It is a lot to read though. I liked the cases you used, that always helps see what you are talking about in action. You might try to include more pictures along with the sections and maybe some of the tools. Galaga180 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is great and has wonderful, much needed detail. My favorite section is the Pup tent fly traps. It was kind of hard to follow when I was reading it but the picture completely helped give me a visual and it totally made sense. It was organized very well with a great flow from section to section. The only thing that I think may not necessarily belong in Wikipedia is the section with the example cases. They are great but they may not be good for an encyclopedia. Overall great job!Thom2577 (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this article to be very informative. You went into great detail and I found it all very interesting! I would suggest maybe having a more attention grabbing introduction or maybe add a little to it. I would also suggest adding some more pictures. I think pictures would really help people visualize what you are explaining better. Hietpas08 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)