Talk:Use of DNA in forensic entomology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law Enforcement  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Great job, I found it very informative. I liked that you added the case studies, but didn't really see the need to include all the base sequences of the DNA, just seems to take up space, but that is entirely one person's opinion. Other than that, great job. The article was written well and easy to read. Mari2111 (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a great article but I would have liked to hear more about "The Barcode of Life" explaining what species were involved in the project and what the results of the project was. --Lmconine168 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the poster below me. I think the article as a whole has plenty of information. While you do have some listing going on that could possibly be expanded on, I think that the summaries are plenty. You're writing about DNA after all, not each individual species of insect involved in forensic entomology. However, I think that your introduction does need a little work, it does not grab me at all. Also, I do not feel that a conclusion to your article is necessary. Bmb4516 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall, this was a good article but I feel a little more info should have been put into the article. There is a lot of listing and not enough explanation. Another thing to keep in mind is that not everyone knows what the letters stand for in the example DNA analysis.Ento431ke (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)ento431ke

I thought this was a great article. It’s absolutely amazing how the forensic entomology is contributed in some of the most disturbing crime cases. Also the Haematophagous insects of forensic importance section would make a good study guide for our test!(June21st86 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Hi, this is a great article. I think that it could even be more enhanced if you provided pictures. I think the portion where you give a list of specimens and their DNA is a little bit much for someone who has no understanding of DNA and how it works. If you use this tactic then I think you sould explain a little bit more on the topic. Go back over and check your grammar as well. Otherwise this is an excellent article!!Megalatta (talk

Awesome job guys. I love the article and the way it was laid out. I am not sure if anyon—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdkws1986 (talkcontribs) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC) e has suggested taking out the nucleotide sequence section but, I would not at all. I think that is key to your article especially if you want it to grow. You will get a whole class of viewers by keeping the code in the article. Great job.


This article is very useful for someone not knowing a lot about DNA in forensic entomology or for anyone interested in finding out more information. This is a well written artilce,maybe some pictures of the different orders would help the reader get a better idea what kind of insects are found in those different orders disscussedCturtle21|talk]]) 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)aggieturtle21

Remember that the article needs to be at least 10 paragraphs, and much of your space is simply lists or DNA sequencing. Just make sure you have enough content. Lauren Kalns (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmfc (talkcontribs) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

Warning[edit]

I, too, think this is a very important part in Forensic entomology. Without the use of these tools and researches many cases could go unsolved. With more information like this getting to the public the study and research of such important species is only to grow. This inturn will help the public understand the importance of things such as the body farm and how it is helpful, not cruel or babaric. Crosenbalm (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this article as not many people take into account the biological aspect of Entomology, in the present age many fields are being merged together. Biophysics, Geophysics, etc. The only things I noticed or would suggest changing are to summarize the "Current Research" section. The giant string of nucleotide abbreviations seems like extraneous information. You should also link the polymerase chain reaction to the actual wiki as many people have heard of PCR but have no clue as to what it is. 165.91.58.67 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very important, if not the most important part of Entomology in the Forensic field. I think the article was very informative and precise, but still a little primitive. Not because of a lack of info provided on your part but because of the youth of the issue itself. This will be a wonderful article to follow up on in time and as more information is uncovered. Great job! --Ctmfc (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a section of the Entomology and the law that I am going to reword and link to your page. Check out the very bottom section which talks about DNA analysis as it pertains to their topic.Quatrevingtsix (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if we (Group 20 Forensic entomology and society) could link to your page. We have a section for famous cases so if you know of any that used DNA and forensic ento let me know and I will add it to our page and link to you. I'll see if I can find one too. Also, PCR was an earth shattering technique that revolutionized sequencing and could stand to be expanded slightly, maybe by explaining its significance to the case. Other than that I think this is a good article with lots of potential as it gets more exposure.Quatrevingtsix (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008

  • Don't say "it would be great if" - just create the link for goodness sake! As I have been requesting for several days! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was very informative. Maybe some pictures could be included. For example, pictures of DNA analyzing equipment. Other than that, the article was interesting. Dbw279 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys--make the changes required by the warning banners as soon as possible. you don't want your article deleted. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You heard what the woman said. Action the {{linkless}} tag - do not keep removing it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean by linkless apparently, because we have plenty of links on our paper. dansha4521f (UTC)

I misunderstood at first too, it means no other articles refer to ours. It's an "orphan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarcticgecko (talkcontribs) 06:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Do you understand now? I hope Adrienne will tell you to create incoming links but in fact it is not mandatory from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy. However one thing is absolutely clear: if you are not willing to create incoming links, you must leave the {{linkless}} tag in place. Do you understand? If the linkless tag gets removed once more, I shall protect the page out of sheer frustration.
Also, could you point me to the bit in the MoS that says we have an "Introduction" section. I thought that articles started straight off with an intro paragraph. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I should not need to "explain in great detail", you should learn to read. Yes, there are plenty of outgoing links. But there are no actual articles which link to this page - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Use of DNA in forensic entomology. To put that as simply as I can: the {{linkless}} tag is a request that you should go to other articles and create links in them to this article. Do you understand now? See my comment above re mandatory or not. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So I think I successfully linked the article to at least two other articles: Entomology and the law and Forensic entomology and society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txshinerblonde (talkcontribs)

  • Why is it so difficult for you to get the concept of links being directional? I am not interested in outgoing links, which you have provided reasonably well. I have been asking repeatedly for incoming links. Quatrevingtsix has created a link from Entomology and the law to this article. Now go and create some more. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your constructive advice RHaworth. I think I did a successful link in the article Forensic entomology and society to our article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runwild2006 (talkcontribs) 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is well written and organized. Maybe if you add a few more links the orphaned banner will go away.Hurricane979 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The banner is a manually added tag, not automated. I just removed it. --165.21.154.92 (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Review article[edit]

Lots of good information in this article. The main thing I noticed was sentence structure... so I kind of rewrote alot of those sentences. Nothing big, just stuff with syntax and whatnot. A few other things: you talked about PCR twice, once at blood meal extraction and then during the Analysis section. I don't know, perhaps you were just making sure to be thorough. It seemed a little repetative to me though. Also, your conclusion is about the broad scope of forensic entomology. It's a good conclusion, just maybe throw in something about DNA. That stuff isn't really a big deal, just a few small things I thought about. Aside from that, good article. --Tipitow88 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Dr. Jeff Wells from West Virginia University recently published a review article on this very subject. It was published in the Annual Review of Entomology 2008.ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys the article is very interesting because of how they incorporate DNA with entomology. Under the gel electrophoresis, yall can link it (Im sure there is an existing page) or maybe even get a picture of what it looks like. Also maybe find a link on explaining the base pairing of the nitrogenous bases Mikearq (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Very informative article! You might consider moving the Blood Meal Extraction section to before the Heamatophagus insects of forensic importance section. It would make a little bit more sense hearing about what the blood and DNA are used for and what insects are involved before you begin explaining how to extract the blood and DNA. Other than that, fantastic article! --Moosenik (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a well written article I believe. You guys gave a lot of informative research such as, "PCR is currently the most commonly used method of species identification." Your case studies section gave good detail about each case study. If you could find pictures to add that would be awesome as well.Ms.mitch (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Ms.Mitch

The table mentioned in the article is nowhere to be found. In addition, the DNA sequences are quite obfuscating to the layman. This is inconsiderate and violates the agenda of WP. The organization of the article is confusing. Parts of the article are written in first person, which is incorrect grammar for an encyclopedia, and it includes technical terms which may not be helpful to a layman reader attempting to research the issue at hand.Catgirl357 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you guys know what yall are talking about, and provide this knowledge to us through the article. But there are some parts in the article where you guys talk too advance for the average reader, like the person above me said, you guys talk in layman terms. For example, during the base sequences for different species, maybe yall could explain what TTATA base pairs are. Finally, i found an article for haplotypes, maybe yall could make "haplotype" into a link. Other than that, i really enjoyed the article, it explains DNA analysis really well. I use to work with PCR in my research group, and yall basically covered all the steps. GOOD JOB!!! (Mexicanspaniard1 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

I found this to be a thorough and interesting article. One suggestion I have is to insert a colon instead of a period when you are about to list certain things(yes, I know that's being grammatically picky but it's just something I noticed), such as the DNA base sequences. Also, since there is a great deal of information in this article, images might be inserted to break up the text a little bit so it doesn't appear so over-whelming. Other than that, this was a very good article! Great work! (Sweetypie2305 (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Congratulations on a well written article. I especially enjoyed reading about the mosquito case and was amazed by the methodology used to solve the crime. I felt that the article was very descriptive. The article itself is very technical and therefore requires some previous knowledge of the topic. For a reader just starting to get interested in forensics, this would be a more difficult article to understand. General knowledge of basic chemistry and biology, biochemistry, and genetics eases understanding. I do believe that this article needs to remain technical due to the difficult subject matter. Forensic scientists, professors, and even students must realize that this field is NOT as simple as Chem 101. All of the techniques, taxonomy, etc. give a very general overview of what is involved in abstracting and using DNA during criminal investigations. Although the article was great, I was a little thrown off by the FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGICAL REPORT section. There seems to be a bit more information than needed. Maybe a summary and a conclusion of the findings would be preferable. And as everyone else commented, add some pictures, shorten the paragraphs a little more, and make plenty of white space. (Jaycewright (talk) 7:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Could you please explain the case study by the forensic entomologist Dr. Jeff Wells. I got lost reading through the DNA Extraction section. What exactly does all that stuff mean. Explaining the section more might help others to understand it better. Horsenerd09 (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)horsenerd09

This article was very well written. It shows how forensic entomology is quickly becoming an integral part in solving crimes with the use of a blood meal from DNA. To simplify and describe the process of PCR is a hard task, but was accomplished in a way that someone without a science background would understand. Linking to other pages for further description of the insects discussed is a good way to provide the reader with extra information about each insect and compliments your article nicely. The detailed case study that was used was a great way to explain how DNA is used, but the second paragraph, starting with “DNA extraction #...” seemed confusing. Maybe try putting it in a table format if possible. Other than that, great article! JessicaD128 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting article; I really liked the amount of concrete information. Before reading this I never knew that you could use DNA in the forensic entomology field. I also really liked the description in the whole process and how it works, very well worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellimj (talkcontribs) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was overall pretty good but it was also really choppy. It could be improved by having less separated categories and combining them under one topic. There is also a segment in the article that lists a very long DNA strand. That is just not necessary and it takes up more room than serves a purpose.Thom2577 (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was a great article. You gave a brief overview but also highlighted important details while sticking to an "encyclopedia" writing format. Also, I loved the case studies. These reinforced the applicability of your topic. However, the few things that I feel will improve your article include the following. In the section "Haematophagous insects of forensic importance," I felt it was a bit confusing. You covered some insects in detail while saying nothing about others. It felt it was a bit sparse, and I couldn't decide if you tried to add details to the most important insects or if there was some other reasoning. I believe it would be helpful to say which insects are the most commonly used or highlight the pros and cons of more of the insects listed. Also, I think your article could use a picture. Perhaps you could find an example of an electrophoresis gel. A visual would help convey the process of extrapolating information from DNA samples. --Amb8786 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Very well explained article! I thought it was going to be really hard to understand but you did a great job breaking it down. I really liked the fact that you put an actual report in the article to bring everything together. The only thing I would suggest is maybe adding a couple of pictures of how the tests are performed. Besides that great job! :) Briteny 05 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)briteny_05

Nit picking[edit]

You lot are of course professional nit pickers but I seem to be doing it on an amateur basis. Would you please point me to the bit of the Manual of Style that says that "blood meal extraction" must have capital letters on meal and extraction? Is it somebody's name? Is it a well established trade name? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such bit. Per the MOS, only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized in article titles and section headings; all other letters are in lower case. I would recommend that you lower the volume on the sarcasm, though: it's not especially conducive to group work. – ClockworkSoul 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of times that I have to uncapitalise the above phrase and also to do this edit, I think my sarcasm is justified. Anyway thank you for answering at last. Please make sure that the stored product people also know this rule. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I think this article covers a lot of interesting information. Just a couple of little things: Under blood meal extraction, maybe in "once extracted and isolated, the DNA samples goes through a polymerase chain reaction(PCR), is amplified and identified." you should add a space after 'polymerase chain reaction' and reword, since you should probably add a conjunction like 'and' before 'is amplified and identified.' Also, 'DNA samples' is plural, so 'goes through' and 'is' should technically be 'go through' and 'are.' Hope that makes sense.

Another small edit, you have '95oC' instead of the degree symbol.

Also, for Dr. Wells' case study, you may want to change formatting so it is clear which part is actually contained in his study - especially since his study uses 'I' frequently.

Another thing, 'it' is used frequently in the article - just try to define 'it' or reword so you can avoid using the word 'it.' Thanks a lot and good luck! Gdespejo (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall this is a very good article, but it could use more of an appeal to it. I would suggest including some images that would go along with some of the different orders you have listed.Foxracer11373 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, this is a very interesting article! I can tell you did a lot of research. One problem I had was that this article is quite an "overload" of information, maybe a few images would help in relieving the eyes of those of us who are new to this subject. Also, I would go ahead and un-link the words that go to "nowhere"...these are the words highlighted in red. Great job everyone!!Sasquash128 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Category[edit]

You could categorize your article with forensic entomology, entomology or both. You could also link it to other articles by placing a See Also heading that allows you to link to other pages.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the article was very good. Some things you might consider adding to compliment it are pictures, testomonials from proffesionals with real world experience, or a quote. Overall, well done guys!Mdurrum09 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Howdy! I finished reading over your article a few minutes ago and I thought I should tell you what I thought of it. Firstly, I think you had a good idea of stating the focus of your article in the first few sentences of your introductory paragraph. It's quick and straight to the point, but I feel I should warn you that by specifically stating your article's focus you place a strict limitation on yourself to keep every part of your article within that focus, and that leaves you with less flexibility in the topic you are writing about. I also felt you had an excellent level of descriptive detail in the section titled, "Blood meal extraction." Lastly I would like to finish by suggesting two edits that may improve your article as a whole: First, I would try to include a few pictures of arthropods representative of each family and order you have listed (or as many as possible). Secondly, it seemed to me that in your "Case studies" section, the long lists of base pair sequences for specimens 3-11 in the "Forensic Entomological Report" portion, for the benefit of the reader, perhaps you could find a way of only listing either the name of each specimen or simply the portions of their base pair sequences which are important to the report's conclusions. Well I'm afraid that's all I have for you at the moment so keep up all your hard work! Thanks and Gig'em! Lancecameron (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Hey there, I too liked the article. I like all these articles. But i did think that the chapter on Case Studies was a little confusing. I realize that I konw nothing about DNA with respect to Forensic Entomology, but the paragraph just lost me a little. But over all, i thought it was well thought out, and put together. I really enjoy reading everyone's articles. Daniel Isbell 1225 16 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielisbell (talkcontribs) 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! This article is very well written and organized. I liked how the introduction helps put he topic in context of the bigger picture of forensic entomology. I also liked how the article is divided into sections talking about the different organisms that can be used to isolate DNA. The article could benefit from more pictures to give readers a visual of what they are reading. Nice job!Cenire (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article. Good general information. The paragraph title specimen 4 under "Case Studies" needs attention. Tam712004686 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! After reading your article I thought that maybe you could expand more in your first paragraph. That way you could cover alot more and you would have more subject matter. I enjoyed the case studies and maybe some pictures of the important species would be a good addition. Thanks!-Kels032– Kels032 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job on this guys, there's a lot of technical information in here, but I think in the end that might be your downfall. Just a couple of things I noticed. First the primary definition in the first might need a little fleshing out. It just doesn't seem to cover what you article talks about. Second you might want to consider putting the common insect names next to the order names. This would help an average reader better understand the insects at a glance. Finally is the genetic sequence in the case studies necessary? It seems a little disjointed from the rest of the article. Wateka (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article addresses a very interesting topic, but I think you need to elaborate on the specific purposes that each bug performs. I feel like they are just listed and I have no idea which ones are used for what. With a little more specific details on the different things that each bring to the table, it would make it a pretty good article. Bigjbang79 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)bigjbang79

Good job guys, I really liked all the technical information and how you broke it up. The case studies kind of confused me so I would do a little work in there; they just seemed to be out of place kind of like they don’t belong. Then maybe add a few photos and it would be awesome. Jword 09 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Great info but maybe a little more personable for newcombers to the forensic area. Lots of great technical stuff use some more common names along with the orders. Great case studies makes article more professional. (Rbmoeller (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Good job on the article. You provided a lot of information, especially the paragraph about blood meal extraction. You did a good job explaining the processes involved. It was easy to follow and the links were helpful in explaining what exactly happens during the procedure. I would consider using a different heading beside "conclusion" for your last paragraph to make the article more like a encyclopedia article and not a term paper. Best js 2007 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference n.11 (case Study #1) IS WRONG!!! it shoul be changed Cirneco2009 Cirneco2009 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Case study[edit]

I love case studies! I think for the sake for all, who think case study is a cult following, you all should add more interesting case studies...I wish you all could go really in depth in a case study like Princess Diana or other celebrity cases. This is probably my favorite assignment. Maybe add some of the details from the OJ Simpson case. I know there were some very interesting facts about DNA found in the gloves. SEE what you all can do. Even without anymore additions, the assignment can stand alone.Lopez stc1 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This was a very interesting article. I was a little lost when reading it, but that may be because I know nothing about using DNA in forensic entomology. I also think that a more descriptive introduction would have been helpful, especially for someone who doesn't have a solid background in DNA. Good job! Laadame (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a great topic.. I believe there could be ALOT MORE information considering the topic is very interesting. But overall what is present is great.(Lice2008 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC))


I do apologize cause maybe I'm writing my comment in the wrong place BUT reference n.11 (case Study #1) IS WRONG!!! does anybody know how to change it??? moreover, there are new research papers on this topics, does anybody know a simple way to add them (procedures and explanations are a bit diffciult to me..) Cirneco2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirneco2009 (talkcontribs) 10:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)