Talk:Oiceoptoma noveboracense

Comments

Great Job!! In reading your article there was not much to comment on correcting anything. I love the detail in your paragraphs, it most definitely keeps the article interesting. Overall you did a great job. Keep up the good work!

Lflores0812 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a very nice page. I do, however, have one slight suggestion. A few more links within Wikipedia would enhance the lower portion of the page, such as in the sections of "Distribution & Habitat", "Forensic", "Medical", and "Future Research." This is, however, only a minimal issue in an otherwise excellent page!--C19872010g (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. We appreciate your help in making our article the best it can be and will look for more ways to link our article in the last few sections.Shealamartin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for your input. I have added a inter-wiki link to PMI under the forensic section.--Quatre127 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article is really good and descriptive. There are a few words that could be linked to other pages, such as “larvae” and even “forensic.” I think that the content of the article doesn’t need any revision so I don’t have any suggestions, as far as that goes. Good luck kand good job! Karalin11 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Karalin11! We will look for more words in our article for linking to other pages. Mehermance (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your article! I thought it was very informative and contained lots of detailed information. I really liked how you expanded on certain things such as mating habits and habitats. The only thing I think you might be able to add might be which bacteria were found in the guts of these beetles and what possible diseases these bacteria could bring if found to be a vector. The overall paper was awesome and ya'll did a great job! Dentalgirl (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I re-read the article where we had found the information about the bacteria associated with our species. It was a very short article that didn't list any of the bacteria species that were identified or any possible diseases they might transmit. To clarify, I added a line distinguishing the type of bacteria (coliform and staphylococci) that were referred to as the "known opportunistic pathogens." Thanks again.Mehermance (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your article. I did have a couple of suggestions for changes. Under Life cycles, forty five needs to be forty-five. Also under the Taxonomy section you need to have a source cited for that sentence. If there is anyway to expand that paragraph by including the year the species was named and who was responsible for naming the species that might help. Also I had a question about the 45 days needed for an adult to emerge from mating. Is that number set in stone or is it temperature dependent? I understand there is probably limited references so good job with what you have completed. KathrynR (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading our article and making suggestions! I made the changes you suggested in the Life cylces and Taxonomy sections. The 45 days is temperature dependent; the information on our species' life cylce was very limited. Thanks again. Mehermance (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the article was overall very well written and enjoyable to read. I thought that all of the information presented in the introduction paragraph was appropriately placed. However, I feel that the intro could use a bit more proofreading to make it flow better. Maybe some more punctuation to add pauses for the reader would be good, or perhaps just rewording. I just think that the opening paragraph should be really strong because it is what draws the reader into the rest of the article. I also think that the information provided under the 'Taxonomy' section could be added to the intro paragraph because it would incorporate easily into the overview provided in the intro and provide addition background info. I also don't feel like it is substantial enough to really stand alone. In your 'Life Cycle' section, I felt that you could have gone into more detail about the number of generations, larval stages, etc., and provided a more concise time estimation for how long they were in each individual stage of development. Although the information provided on mating was nice, I feel like it overshadowed other information that would have been more relevant to Forensic Entomology. Lastly, I the fact that it is a "necrophagous beetle" should not be first introduced in the research section. This information could have been placed much earlier in the article, since the research section brings the article to a close. There also didn't seem to be a reference for this little tid bit of info. Like I said before, I think that the article was very good and enjoyable. Paulette10 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. We are currently working to make our article flow better by correcting some of the sentence structuring and wording. We are also trying to find more information on the life cylce, regarding the number of generations and developmental stages. Thanks again. Mnf238 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the article. I thought is was very well thought out and discussed beutifully. It was very informative and i am definately leaving with more than i came with! jhud12 (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good article, but I did find two minor spelling errors. In the last sentence of the introducion paragraph, it's suppose to be its (without an apostrophe). Also, millimeters is misspelled in the first sentence of the Description section (millimeters instead of millimetres). Other than those minor mistakes, I enjoyed your article. I liked the details you added in each of the sections. Pbianca88 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.55.246 (talk)

Thanks for finding those typos. We appreciate your input! Mehermance (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

peer review

Very well written article! Not a lot to comment on just that when counting your paragraphs I think I was right at 10 stretching it..not sure if maybe yall want to add one more paragraph just to be safe. Im not sure if this species has any importance in the veterinary world but if yall haven’t looked into that, that might be a good spot to pull another paragraph/more information from. If yall have already looked into that and couldn’t find any then no other comments and good job! Amccolloch (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. We did a lot of research on this species and the information out there is very limited. Unforntuneately we never came across anthing that related the species to the veterinary world. We will review the article though, and see if there is a paragraph or two that can be split up. Thanks again! Mehermance (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes

Good job on your article, there are just a few last minute minor changes I found on your article. On the first paragraph I noticed that you have an extra opening quotation when defining the Latin specific name. Also, in your description paragraph the second to last sentence says "yellowish tent" rather than "yellowish tint". In your life cycle paragraph you may use the word "predacious" to help strengthen the text. Also, I read the previous comments and I agree that more wikilinks would help your article. Some words that may be good choices include:

• Oviposit
• Post Mortem Interval
• Inundation
• Hemolymph

Lastly, in your distribution section the last sentence might sound better as: It may be present as far south as Texas.--Skk1214aggie (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)skk1214aggie

Thank you for your valuable comments! I fixed all of the typos you commented on and I replaced the last sentence in the distribution section. We will also be looking for more words to use for wikilinks within the article. We appreciate you help. Mehermance (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon! Your article is well written over all. I did find a few grammatical errors in the Forensic Importance section. In the first sentence the comma should be placed before the species name rather than after it because the name is the subject of the sentence. Also, you don't need the comma preceeding "and rarely feed on the carrion" because you aren't separating two independent clauses here. Lastly, the fourth sentence may read better as: "They can also be found in the later stages of decomposition depending on variables like temperature, climate, and location of the carrion." You don't really need "etc" if you use "variables like..." --Kendrahewitt (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)kendrahewitt

We have made the suggested changes and appreciate your input on our article. Thank you! Shealamartin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

-You guys put together a very great article. I found it very informative and interesting. Your article also flows very well. I have only a few very minor suggestions. In the last sentence of the introduction paragraph you could write "the primary forensic importance of this beetle is its ability to use..." instead of "the ability to use," and the sentence might flow just a little better. Also, the first sentence of the Medical section could actually be split in to two separate sentences. For example, "The medical importance of Oiceoptoma noveboracense has yet to be substantially determined. However, a study has found its hindgut, midgut, and associated hemolymph can potentially harbor known opportunistic bacterial pathogens." Other than those two minor suggestions I have nothing but great things to say about this article. I find the Life Cycle section very interesting, especially the part about their unique mating habits. Very good article. --Joshfinch10 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I will definitely look into correcting/improving some of our sentence structures. Mnf238 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the article. It was difficult to find any errors, but I think the sentence that reads -"Ultimately these beetles if found corroborate the more useful insect colonizers PMI data with succession-pattern based information." - would flow a lot better if it read "Ultimately, if found, these beetles corroborate the PMI data of the more useful insect colonizers with succession-pattern based information." The way the sentence was written made it sound a little confusing, but I think rephrasing it may help. Also, adding a few more pictures would help in supporting the description. Other than that the page looks great. Celi28 (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate your input and we made the change you suggested for the rewording of that sentence. The picture that is shown is one that someone in our group took. We inquired into some pictures posted on various websites, but we did not get any permission from the owners. Thanks again for your help! Mehermance (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good article! Well written, informative and enjoyable. Just a few minor edits...
Life Cycle The last two sentences of the first paragraph in this section might benefit from some rewording, maybe something to the effect of "The eggs are laid in carrion and once the larvae hatch, they begin to feed on their substrate." and "… the adults typically feed on carrion but are facultative predators of other fly species’ larvae". They sound fine as is, and your point isn't unclear but some paring down of redundant words might not hurt either.
The first paragraph of the Forensic section may need be edited for grammatical correctness. Currently, it seems that the meaning of the sentence is that these are found ON carrion and ON associated crime scenes. The sentence might make more sense if it said “…and [at/around/in] associated crime scenes”. Also, in the Current and future research section, I would recommend further explanation of the term “reservoir host” and also possibly linking this to the Host (biology) page. Overall, great job! Ag2012 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)