Talk:Insect development during storage

Talk:Insect development during morgue storage and autopsy procedures

Hey guys--I got this comment on my talk page today about your article:

I came across this article because it was nominated for peer review, so I thought that I would review it (peer review comments are here). While I applaud your efforts at trying to get Wikipedia into the classroom, and to get students to actually contribute to articles instead of attempting to cite it as a source, or plagiarize from it, I have serious concerns that the students working on this particular article just don't "get it". The paper in question is really just a term paper, and written in that style. It's not an encyclopedia article, and I am failing to understand why this topic is important to the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article is NOT a term paper, mostly because of the style of writing; an encyclopedia article must be informative, complete, and written from a neutral point of view. Most college term papers actually encourage a more persuasive style of writing, and I think if students are to learn how to effectively collaborate and write articles for Wikipedia, they need to break out of this mode of writing (see WP:NPOV for Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy).

Your students also need to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and not something else that you give them in class. And as their professor, you should be teaching them this manual of style. If you publish material in an academic, peer-reviewed journal, you're expected to adhere to that journal's style guidelines, and not something else. The same thing should apply to Wikipedia. The article in question does not even come close to adhering to WP:MOS.

I notice that you mentioned the featured article process on your course page. One thing that you should take a closer look at is the Featured article criteria, which outlines four specific criteria that all FAs must adhere to. It would be good to make sure that your students understand this criteria, as it goes hand-in-hand with the manual of style. There's also another article review process as well; the Good article process. GAs have a similar set of six criteria, though it is a little less stringent than FA. It might be worth mentioning this as an option to your students since it sometimes takes less time to go through a GA review than a full FA review.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Take this feedback very seriously, and make the changes he suggests. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

More specific areas are, of course, in the peer review. While I do apologize a little if my comments are a bit harsh, I do have to stand by the manual of style and the issues with the article. That being said, I do want to commend the students for going out and nominating the article for peer review. This does show a certain commitment and desire to listen to the criticism of others, which is quite important. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing your article, I feel that either a different title or possible merge into a similar related site would be beneficial. The title is very specific and may never be found when searching for anything in this field. However, your information you provide is great and very well organized. I was looking at the Autopsy page and thought your subject may fit in there nicely, or at least linking to your page from inside there. --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the temperature threshold section, did you mean to say thicker parts of the body that cool more slowly, because as it is you are saying the parts that cool faster, which doesn't seem to make sense. Colstewart71639 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)