Talk:Cleridae

Suggested changes

First of all, you did a good job covering this broad topic. My group had to cover genus Chrysomya, so I know how difficult it is to include everything. One thing I will suggest is although you listed the subfamilies of the genus, maybe focus on one or two of the important species and mention them more in depth. Just an idea. Other than that, you had a very good description of the different habitats that Cleridae inhabits. I also was very impressed with the way you split up the forensic importance by stored product and medico-legal entomology. Overall, this article was very educational and very easy to read. Well done. Msrubar (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Msrubar

The article was informative and you did a good job of making it easy to understand. I noticed especially that y'all were thorough with inline citations. For a minor change under the 'Appearance' section: "The pronotum region is nearly cylindrical and characteristically narrower than the elytra (special hardened front wings), while the head is as wide or wider than the pronotum." Also, I think you should try to add more pictures to show the different appearances. Good job! Klfoster (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)KLFoster

Overall, it was a great article; I really liked all the pictures. I had just a few suggestions that might make it a bit better. First, under Identification, you mentioned "polyphaga", and I was not sure if it should be capitalized since it is a Linnaean classification. Also, you might mention how climate affects the life cycle. It may seem obvious to you that the higher the temperature, the faster the beetle grows, but it would not be obvious to all wiki users. Lastly, you mentioned that some species are scavengers multiple times, so you may want to talk about how a scavenger's appetite differs from the other species. Just a few ideas! I really enjoyed the article. (Mereharton (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you to all of you that have made suggestions. We will work to make your suggested changes, and continue to improve this page. Blm2010 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a great article, it had so much information, and it was conveyed in an easy to understand manner. I have two comments to make about this article: First, the section on feeding habits seems oddly put together to me. The style of listing this information seems unnecessary. You can easily right this information down in sentences, starting the sentence off with the name, and using the rest of the sentence to give the information. In the identification section, the fourth sentence does not flow, it doesn't seem to be written correctly. I think you completely erase the word also that starts the sentence, it makes that entire sentence a fragment, or you could put a comma after the word also, that would make the sentence make sense. Great article, thanks for listening! (--Rockymtv25 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Overall, great article. One minor error that I found was a capitalization mistake. On your General Characteristics section, "characteristics" should not be capitalied.Also, on the picture demonstrating the narrow pronotum, maybe adding "of cleridae" or naming the genus/specie in the picture would be a nice touch. --Skk1214aggie (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)skk1214aggie

Thank you to both of you for your suggestions, they have been taken into account and should now be reflected on the page. Blm2010 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

You introduced this article well. I like how the first few paragraphs give a little taste of what you're about the read and then you scroll down for further detail. I like clerid beetles a lot, so it is fun to read about them.

One little error I noticed is in the Geography section, I think it ought to read 'The nest robbers category lives IN shrubbery..' Also, I like how you have the tarsal formula in the identification section. It may also be useful to someone using this page as an ID tool to include that while the tarsal formula is 5-5-5, a clerid's fourth tarsal segment is usually rather difficult to see. The picture you have describing it helps to explain tarsal formula, but it may be a little misleading as far as the clerids are concerned. Also in this section, I noticed that you put the actual name of some leg anatomy in parentheses: (trochanter). This may be picky, but I feel that since the trochanter is the actual name of the structure that it should not be in parentheses. It would feel more professional to just say: '..is that Clerid's front coxae expose the trochanter.' You have a picture there helping explain anatomy.

Overall thumbs up! Kimberlyaggie2010 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)KimberlyAggie2010

I am truly impressed with this article; every section is very descriptive and informational. In your general characteristics section, I like the way you all differentiated between the appearance of Cleridae and ways to identify them. The identification paragraph was very distinct and straight to the point. I also noticed how you intertwined appearance in the development section "The larvae are covered in hair and have two horn-type projections on the dorsal area of the last body segment" good work because although you already discussed appearance, you still kept the topic flowing throughout the article. One suggestion I have is to try and find a picture for the forensic relevance section of your article such as a Cleridae feeding on carrion or on stored products. There is a wide variety pictures on your page so keep up the good work. This is a great article. Cassiegz (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)