Talk:Insect indicators of abuse or neglect

Untitled

This was a very good read overall. You should remove the words that you have linked that are red, because this means they do not link to anything. Also I agree with other contributors that pictures of instances of neglect would give your article a bit more of an impact. About a quarter of the way into the article I was thinking that I would suggest adding case studies, but then I saw that you had them and they were excellent! It reminds me of a cool Law and Order or House, M.D. episode!! Maybe thinking about changing the title because it isn't really eyecatching enough when you compare it to the compelling nature of your content.entogirl88 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is very interesting and informative, but it could be improved with some pictures to illustrate. some example pics of what real life situation are like would really help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansha4521f (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I agree that our article would definitely be better with some pictures. I will definitely look into that Pinksugar85 (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

Personally, I think a big "Forensic Entomology" umbrella directory containing a lot of the 29 groups' more specific pages would be easiest to navigate. Seeing all of the subcategories in relation to each other would spark questions pertaining to different fields. Since those umbrella topics get more exposure via keyword searches I bet a lot more people would be inspired to add something to one of the many sub-categories. The Christianity page is a good example with its navigation bar on the right. I had never heard of a lot of those topics before fooling around with wikipedia.Quatrevingtsix (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, do you guys think this should be merged into the "entomology" page, or perhaps the forensic entomology page? If not, why?ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the two should be merged "Entomology as ...." is a very decent stand alone article and both have enough information to be presented as full articles on their own. I think that people looking for information on insects or entomology in general may not want to peruse through an article that encompasses the sort of subject matter found in forensic entomology. "Entomology as ...." should definitely be linked, but not merged to the main entomology article. The two topics are different enough to be separate. Thank you for reading the article.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entomology" I wrote my response in the wrong place. --Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article title is definitely unorthodox and rather verbose for an encyclopaedic article. Suggest that it is merged into forensic entomology or renamed as entomological evidence and made on the lines of subarticles in Evidence (law). Shyamal (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved this to entomological evidence. Shyamal (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the title is verbose and needs to be shortened, but I think the current title is not clear as to the contents of the article. The new title is too broad, there is much more to legal entomological evidence than just indicators of abuse or neglect. Thank you for your help with editing and I will work on the title.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Can the "/" character be avoided in the title ? (See Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles) Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I will do that now.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the Techniques for collection of evidence section, I would suggest defining what "anaphylaxis" is. Also, you have a few red words that can be un-linked. This is a very interesting article! Sasquash128 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprecise section ?

Quoting the "Child abuse or neglect" section: "Although the recognition of abuse is straight forward, some usual symptoms of child abuse/neglect include malnutrition, bruises (...)"

This raises a few flags/questions to me:

* What is the logic of this sentence ? isn't it illogical to say describe symptoms, but correct them with an "although" ?
* what is "straight forward" ? is it the same as "straightforward"
* is really the recognition of abuse "straight forward" ? I would have expected that, on the contrary, it's often not easy to characterize.

I am really not specialist but I feel that this section has serious flaws Farialima (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that needs attention. Thank you for taking the time to read the article and I appreciate you comments.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. That section definitely does not flow well. Thank you so much for your comments.Pinksugar85 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Techniques for collection of evidence" section maybe you can give an example of a species that eat dead tissue and an example of a species that eat living tissue.Ento431ke (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)ento431ke

This article is clear and concise. I was able to go from topic to topic without any confusion on which part of entomological evidence I was reading. You have the case studies under each of the three types of insect idicatiors of abuse and neglect which shows great organization. Pictures added would be of great benefit to the reader.--Raebeam (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Case studies

Case studies were very interesting and really helped to demonstrate how entomology is used forensically. Might consider putting common names of the species in the case studies to make it easier for those who don't know scientific names to read and understand exactly what entomological evidence was collected. Good article. -Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runwild2006 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I added the common names of the insects under the elderly abuse and neglect section.Horsenerd09 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)horsenerd09

Is there a particular reason all case studies presented are of elderly German women dying in 2002? If any one could find some more variable case studies to present, it would add much to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versailles1798 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no particular reason for the case studies being from the same year other than the fact that the published research on the subject is quite limited. Thank you for reading the article. --Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I wrote the section on elderly abuse and the only good evidence I could find for insects used in determing neglect were those about the German women. I did find more articles but they were not as in depth about the types of insects on the body or how they were used in determining neglect. Horsenerd09 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Carol Lipps

One of the major reasons all cases of neglect and entomology are from German, is a major forensic entomologist Mark_Benecke, is from Germany and is responsible for nearly all the research into entomology and neglect. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This artical is quite interesting. I was unaware of the fact that young boys and elderly women are the most susceptible to abuse. Knowing a man who was neglected until almost dead, this subject hits very close to home. In case studies of the elderly, there could be other cases rather than only elderly women. Also, it is not only young or elderly that are abused or neglected. Many disabled people, no matter their age, are left to take care of themselves, many not always having been disabled do not know or are not yet able to care for themselves. Crosenbalm (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. We initially wanted to include the disabled in our article but there weren't enough resources and evidence cases to create such a section. This is primarily because most of these cases go unreported. Thanks again for reading the article. Hando09 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks great and is really interesting! I noticed some formatting issues. It's not really a big deal but it would help your paper to look much more presentable. Under the case studies section of child abuse. The first case is indented and the next two are not. If you will remember, under the other sections of cases studies those are also formatted this way. Other than that, it looks awesome! Lindseyjean11 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lindseyjean11, the indention of the case studies is a little awkward, it would look much better if these were uniform to one another. Also, are there any pictures that could be used to show the type of trauma associated with the neglect. Maybe you could find a couple that are not too gruesome to help illustrate the article's topics. Otherwise, I think this is a very interesting topic. AMFaris (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. My groups members and I are in the process of correcting the formatting issue. Horsenerd09 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)horsenerd09

Very good article! I found the cases very interesting and provided great examples of the abuse and neglect indicators. The only suggestion I had was to maybe add two more cases under the "Animal Abuse or Neglect" section to keep the symmetry between it and the other two sections. Nice job though! :) Briteny 05 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)briteny_05

Love the topic. In the second paragraph, you should delete the word "which" out of "Abuse and neglect, WHICH results...". Also pictures could make this article more interesting too, I know there are a ton on our powerpoints from class especially from the section before the first test. The cases studies are very interesting but you might want to add a little more about the entomology importance and background. Adrienne told us about the case where they thought it was abuse but it was a cockroach bite. It might be interesting to add in common bites that can be mistaken for abuse. Good work! Mcgi133 (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Case studies

I added two to Mark's for variety.Referencing them is awkward.These were my own reports to hospitals and social workers and not published. You will find this true of much forensic work.This is unfortunate because experience an knowledge of other cases is everything here.Knowing what to look for is half the battle.Slainte (Irish for Cheers) Robert Notafly (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It is greatly appreciated. If you have any more suggestions please feel free to share them. Horsenerd09 (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)(Carol Lipps)

Thanks so much for your addition. The variety is definitely appreciated. Pinksugar85 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that adding all the case studies really shows the relevance of entomology in forensic cases, but it isn't a matter that needs to be taken lightly. Just because insect indicators may be present doesn't necessarily mean that abuse and neglect are present. Therefore I think that the title is a little misleading. The article is amazing I just want to make sure that everyone who reads it is in understanding that it is a possible indicator not a definite cause. Good work! --Cal101387 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Howdy! I just wanted to say first of all that I was really impressed with the level of detail your group has put into this article thus far! I also thought your sub-section titled, "Child abuse or neglect" was especially well written. I was particularly interested in the historical background you provided in the opening paragraph of that section. Also, in all three of the sub-sections detailing major forms of abuse or neglect, I personally thought you made great use of case studies in regards to helping your readers visualize and grasp the severity of such crimes. I do have a few editing suggestions however that I hope you find helpful:For the benefit of those who don't already know what the term means, you might consider including a definition of "Post Mortem Interval." In Section 1, "Indications of abuse and neglect," I re-read that first paragraph a few times and each time I couldn't help but feel that the first sentence of that section seems slightly redundant (for lack of a better word) after having already read the introduction section. I think the first two sentences of the sub-section titled, "Elder abuse or neglect" should be combined in order to make the first paragraph flow more smoothly. Also, maybe you could even re-phrase the title of that sub-section because something strikes me as peculiar each time I read it to myself. Lastly, I think it would be great if you could include some pictures of the forensically important species of flies and beetles you have listed at the end of your article. Well I hope you found some of my suggestions helpful. Even without them, you all still have a well written and thorough article. Thanks and Gig'em! Lancecameron (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the forensically important species at the bottom of the page was a nice add. Good job guys. The types of abuse and neglect section is also well represented here. I like how y'all put the main points and then subsequently elaborated on each one, so the reader has no questions as to what exactly you are referring to. However, if these links are to just abuse, maybe the linked words to should be changed to just "types of abuse". Overall though, a good article. Kellyorr1 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys did a good job of sticking to the topic. Abuse and neglect were related to forensic entomology perfectly, and the article was very well written overall. I did not know that you could see signs of abuse and neglect through entomological evidence, so that was very informative. Also, the case studies following each description were very helpful when trying to understand the concept. Pictures would have made the article more appealing, but I think your topic, in general, was a very good choice. Laadame (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I was just dropping by to tell you how much I enjoyed your paper. My favorite part was the section on child abuse and neglect. Not only is it well written i learned some things I didn't know before. The case studies were probably my favorite part. I think you guys would benefit from adding some pictures of the insects that are important. Thanks! -Kels032 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kels032 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article guys, it goes great with our article and I'm thinking about linking to yours if that's ok. One thing I noticed was that The case studies might be a little confusing or hard to find at first. You might want to consider either creating a new section or use subheadings in the main sections. Other than that great job!Wateka (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall this article looks great! I think you could probably expand on the section about indicators of abuse and neglect section. I think someone else said pictures would help and I agree. Hietpas08 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your nice comments! I wrote the part about child abuse and neglect, so I'm especially pleased you guys liked it. I appreciate your idea about making the case studies section more prominent, and I will look into that. Pinksugar85 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one researcher?

"Currently, extensive research on insect indicators of abuse or neglect is being conducted and published by Mark Benecke, a German forensic entomologist. Unfortunately, the majority of the research material available (such as case studies) is written in German. Further investigation about entomological evidence used in abuse or neglect cases in all probability exists, yet is not currently published or available to the general public."

I find the above reference to only one researcher questionable - especially without citing some kind of outside source. I'll wait for a while to see if we can improve this and if not the reference should be removed.

bpage (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)