Talk:Forensic entomological decomposition

This article is great, maybe a little bit more pictures to go alog with it. For example maybe some pictures to show how weather can affect decompositon in different types of environments. Other than that great job on the article. Aggie turtle21 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)aggieturtle21

The article needs a lead section to explain what your article is about. Something to give a general overview of what it will be explaining.--PinDr4gon (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, if you could please, let me know what you think of it. I don't want to be too repetitive.--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Title change

Please see the manual of style for article title convention. Shyamal (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Hi, there are suggestions to merge this article into Stages of decomposition because of the overlapping content. To centralize discussion, you can leave comments at Talk:Decomposition#factors_affecting_decomposition.--165.21.154.88 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought your article was extremely well written. I found no areas that needed much revision. It was suggested your article be merged into decomposition. This is a valid statement since it does go into detail about decomposition in general. I do feel, however, that you provided many points that related it to the topic of forensic entomology. I really enjoyed this article. Garza j e (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)garza_j_e

Thank you for your input, its greatly appreciated to get feedback.--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

this could be possibly merged to the over all Decomposition.User --heartbreaker5785 (talk)

We have been discussing that topic in the Decomposition discussion page.--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your group should consider merging with the decomposition article. I'm a member of the other group who wrote about human decomposition. We merged our article with the existing article. Your article would really fit in with the other three. Not only to be more complete, but I think that it would be more beneficial to the reader to have all of this information on one page. Best of luck! Lindseyjean11 (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, i must agree, this is nearly the same as the decomp page. I love your pictures and expanation as to what happens in each stage. I love your site and it would be awesome to merge it. thanks for your time. --heartbreaker5785 (talk)

It is a good suggestion, but I feel that this article can stand on its own. The main Decomposition page covers decomposition as a whole. This article covers things that are important in the field of a forensic entomologist. This article is too much of a different focus. --Sadiezapalac (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

peer review

This article includes a lot of great information! I have some suggestions that could improve your article. I didn't critique your entire article in order to leave some in case another peer wants to review this article.

• Remember what Adrienne said in class about connecting insects with post mortem interval? you may consider changing the references to Post Mortem Interval to "insect colonization time"
• animal cells do not have cell walls; they only have a plasma membrane
• "These gases commonly consist of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane,cadaverine, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen, and Putricine." there needs to be a space between the comma after methane and cadaverine
• give the scientific name for "cheese skipper"
• don't use the word "mummy" to define "mummification"; according to dictionary.com, a mummy is "a dead body dried and preserved by nature," so you can insert that instead

Hope you found this useful! Weilingz (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! I have to say that this is the most complete article I have come across so far in this class assignment. You have done an amazing job with the organization and presentation of this information, and I feel that there aren't any missing sections. The pictures are a great added feature to the detailed descriptions of the levels of decomp. However, after reading this article and the discussion of merging this with the Decomposition page, I have to agree with the merge. Although this is a more specific topic of decomposition, I think if merged it will be more accessible and enhance the overall content of both articles dramatically. The Decomposition article lacks the forensic entomologist view of the facts, however your article lacks the more specific human decay and some other topics that are covered on the decomp page.

I don't think merging is a bad idea -- but absolutely, without a doubt if you decide not to merge for whatever reason, I would strongly suggest that you link the decomposition page repeatedly in areas where you do not go into detail, and vice versa, linking their page to yours by the internal link function. Another thing to think about might be to move the "factors affecting decomp" more towards the beginning, or make some kind of disclaimer for each stage of decomp. Giving intervals like 10-25 days doesn't really help the reader understand how this kind of evidence could possibly gie a reasonable PMI or colonization time. It seems to broad to be viable as a reader with no knowledge on the subject.

Keep pluggin! The article really does look great -- good work! Kayla foster (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article, I do like that the two merged. I noticed that the last two sentences of your introduction could be put together and may give better flow. Also, you conclusion mentions coffin flies, maybe you could link this to the page that ENTO 431 group did on the coffin flies. AMFaris (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Very interesting information. The one thing that stood out to me that might need revamping is the title of the article. While it is about decomposition it also includes a lot of the faunal succession. Maybe it could be titled something like forensic entomological decomposition and faunal succession. Just something to think about, good work though. Galaga180 (talk)

Ento 431 Group members

To other members in my group writing this article, we need to be citing references in this manner when we have a website url in the references: CLICK ONthis --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have to use the {{cite web}} format, but the url should be put as a link from the cited article title. For example

<ref>"Decomposition." Australian Museum Online. 2003. Australian Museum. 2 Mar. 2008 <http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/decomposition/index.htm>.</ref>

should be

<ref>[http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/decomposition/index.htm "Decomposition."] Australian Museum Online. 2003. Australian Museum. 2 Mar. 2008 .</ref>

The important thing is that all the citations are consistent in style(output, not code), so you shouldn't have one citation that goes Last name/First name/Title/Publication/Date and another that goes Title/First and Last name/Date/Publication. --220.255.7.217 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions to offer. Maybe mention that flies feed on the fiber between muscles until after the body has completed rigor. In the last sentence under Fresh maybe use released instead of let out. In the second paragraph on the third line under Butyric fermentation, I think… At this particular point, most of the beetles are in the larval stage might keep you from using stage twice in the same sentence. On the seventh line where it says …are not predacious and found on the… maybe put are before found. “The cheese fly larvae can “skip” up to 15cm in the air.”….I felt that this comment was random in the paper. Maybe see if there is a better place to fit it in. Under Access, sixth line down, replace get to with infest. Under Clothing and pesticides don’t end your sentence with maybe. Your examples and back up information under Current research was very good. --Jordanmurphy (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

USA

Being in the world language English articles must have a world perspective.This is hard here but the insect sections must be prefaced "In the USA" The insect succession is more or less the same everywhere but the species are different.Hope to get a longer look at this article soon.Great work at Texas A and M.I really like this project.Notafly (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ICT

So Adrienne perfers "insect colonization time" to PMI. So do I. It saves having to explain that when we say PMI we don't mean PMI we mean "insect colonization time".Or worse don't explain it.Notafly (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed

Just to let you know, I fixed the species to be more world wide, and for the examples that pertained to the united states, I mentioned it as such. Also, I explained in the lead section that insect colonization time was used to estimate the postmortem interval. Also, the article never says insect evidence can determine the post mortem interval. We always made sure to say that insects could provide insight to the post mortem interval.--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats great. But the point can't be overemphasised.Would you consider this addition (bold)so that the intro reads- One aspect of forensic entomology is the use of arthropod and insect science in death investigations. A detailed background on the stages of decomposition and associated fauna is key to interpreting information such as postmortem interval. Forensic entomologists use the time of insect colonization in order to give the shortest estimate for the postmortem interval (Shorter because egg laying may be delayed by , say, a body being wrapped or a death occurring in cold weather) . Exploring the external factors that may affect decomposition and the colonization of fauna is vital when using entomological evidence in an investigation.

Arthropod is I think redundant here.This would be unusual.Best wishes RobertNotafly (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be best in the current research subtitle to explain what each chemical found in a maggot entails. Just a suggestion! Otherwise, awesome pictures, and keep up the good work. Csb14 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article, a few more pictures depicting more stages and maybe less cats, unless you really hate cats than I guess ok. But throw in a few puppies and kittens too. No really, great photos, Keep up the good work. Perhaps if you could show a group of photos depicting decomposition from start to finish?Txdevine1 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)