Talk:Creophilus maxillosus

Untitled
This is a University class project, we are open to suggestions and willing to discuss anything that may improve our assignment for further review. Thank youSarahgrace12 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Great job! The only noticed two things that I would like to see. First, you used the metric system which is great because most of the world uses that system, but you could also put an English system measurement next to the metric ones. Also, under the Geography section you stated where is was found in the United States but failed to say where it was found in the rest of the world, if it even is found other places. Good work overall! Agg4Lfe (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work on your article, it was very informative and easy to read. The only suggestions I would make would be to add more links to add clarity to your article such as to Post Mortem Interval (PMI) in the Forensic Relevance section and to tergites when describing the defense mechanism. During your Physical Characteristics and Life Cycle section you also give two different values for the length of the pupal stage which is a little confusing. Good work. Aggento10 (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good article, but it does need some work. Please run a spell-check--there are lots of typos and misspellings in this article. There are also some grammar issues (fragments, dangling modifiers, word use (there/their), etc.) that need to be fixed. The "Control" section seemed a little all-over-the-place: work a bit on the flow here...there's some disconnect between the species infesting houses and liking sand and being controlled by X chemical. The word "Diptera" needs to be capitalized, and also linked to, at its first incidence. As far as content goes, I really only have a couple of suggestions. You might consider combining the "Defense" and "Diet" categories into one section (maybe "Behavior"?). As it is, these are both very specific sections that don't contain that much information by themselves. Also, threshold temperature values (if applicable/researched) would be beneficial in the "Life cycle" section. Lastly, headers should only have the first letter capitalized (my article got corrected on this one!). That's really all I saw! Good job, guys! Aggie2011nerd (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in our article. I have fixed the control section; I hope it flows smoothly than before.  Maryam618 (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that you all did a very good job on this article. The biggest issue that I had with this article is that I felt it was kind of lacking in sources here and there. For example, in the 'Physical characteristics' section, the first paragraph has a citation early on, and then the rest of the paragraph is seemingly new information that is not linked to a source. Even if you were to cite one source at the end to encompass the entire paragraph, I feel like it just looks more "copy and pasted" to have that big of a chunk of info to come from one source. Also, in the 'Forensic relevance' section, there is an entire paragraph that doesn't have any citations. There are no citations at all in the 'Forensic case studies' section. I think that even citing your sources multiple times throughout the article would be better than not citing any sources at all in some areas. Lastly, your external links to other pages seem to die down toward the end of the article. In a more scientific article, I think that linking the word "Poland" is a poor choice, and a better choice would be more along the lines of "faunal succession" or something of that nature. Like I said before, I think you all did a very good job in writing this article. Paulette10 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

peer review
I noticed that in your opening paragraph you give a lot of physical description, such as the short elytra, color, large eyes, sharp mandibles ect, that are all physical characteristics. But then in the next heading it says physical characteristics, so I think maybe either re write the opening paragraph and take out the physical characteristics or take out physical characteristics in the heading and just uses that section as the life cycle section and add the remaining characteristics to the opening paragraph. Other then that I think the article is well written and the only other comments I would make is that maybe add a section about on going/future research so that anyone interested can know exactly what is being doing with that species, other then your case study which I thought was really good, unless that is the only one yall can find. Amccolloch (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I did what you reccommended, and you're right, it does make more sense under the description. Trent1229 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

--- Good job guys! I found it very interesting!!! In the Introduction I would suggest making things more distinguishable. What is black and brown in color, the elytra or the actual rove beetle? In the Physical Characteristics and Life Style: The hairy rove beetle has needle-like jaws that close across in front of head and large, prominent eyes. In front of the head would help the sentence flow better. I would also suggest bolding the genus species name to make it stand out a little better in the paragraph when you are making a direct reference to it. Also under Defense Mechanisms this sentence could use a more in depth explanation of what actually occurs when it defends itself: When threatened or disturbed, the beetle revolves its abdomen and touches abdominal tip to offender to wipe the glands (and touches it’s abdominal tip to the offender and wipes the glands on the skin surface of the offender). What happens after that? Is it a vessicating toxin? Under Forensic Relevance in the third sentence though is a typo. Also in that same sentence there should be their. The last sentence overal should have two ls. Maybe you could explain or link entomofaunical successions? Kels068724 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I went back and did further research on the chemical defense and corrected all that I could under defense. I hope it is more understandable and through for clairification. Thank you so much for your assistance, it was very beneficial.Sarahgrace12 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

-This is a very informative article. You guys did a great job. I have only a few suggestions. First, the first sentence of the second paragraph in your Physical Characteristics and Life Cycle section seems a little redundant. The sentence describes how long each stage takes, and the sentences following say the same thing just spread out into individual sentences. Also, in the Defense Mechanism section the sentence "Ants (Formica exsectoides) are a common offender and have portrayed that this defense takes place" the word "portrayed" seems odd in this sentence. In the Control section the third to the last sentence needs commas around "a chemical pesticide composed of permethrin (0.05%)" because this is used to describe Atroban. Lastly, the last sentence in that same section reads, "Both of these pesticides were tested moist spots on poultry dung." I think it should be "in moist spots" or "on moist spots." Other than very few gramatical errors this article was spot on. --Joshfinch10 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for catching the errors in the control section. All that you mentioned have been fixed. Maryam618 (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your article. I think after reading the physical characteristics I just might be able to identify one of these beetles, it was very well written and clear. The only thing I might add to in this section is the life cycle. It seems like there was a lot of time put into writing the physical description and then the life cycle was written in fact form. The life cycle is one of the most important things about the beetle in reference to forensic entomology and it could have used a little more emphasis. This was a very interesting article to read and everything was clear and easy to understand. Mnjennings (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, outstanding article. I found it informative. My only suggestion would be to spend some time linking within wikipedia to words introduced like larvae, elytra, etc. Most people reading this article are going to scratch their heads when reading insect specific terminology. Have a great day. Ento-Ag (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your advice. I went through and linked most terminology. It was very beneficial, little things like that are often overlooked. I think it is much clearer and easier to understand.Sarahgrace12 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ow.

I thought this was an excellent page and provided a lot of good information to all interested readers. The Physical characteristics section had a lot specific information. The only thing I would suggest is to look over your linked words throughout the article. Some words were linked, but there was not a page for those words in Wikipedia. Also, in the last paragraph, the linked word for "decomposition" is missing the "d" in the link. But other than that, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. Great job guys! Blair1126 (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When viewing this article the amount of links immediately jumps out. Make sure that if you don’t want to link something that you check to make sure it is a link. Some of them are in red. Also, it would be nice to see another picture if at all possible. Maybe one from the side? It also states that the larvae is larger than the adult, which it very well could be but maybe you would want to double check that. I know it’s hard to find information about the diet, but I think there should be a little more information if you’re going to make it a whole paragraph. And lastly it might be a good idea to put a few external links to provide a little more information outside of Wikipedia. Barnesj (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

=Description= In your first sentence describing the beetle, you say it "runs" when referring to the length I believe. If you are referring to the length, runs may not be the best word choice as it is not very clear exactly what you are describing. If you are set on using the word run, maybe re-word the sentence to include the beetles run up to 20-25mm in length, or something of that nature where the reader knows what you are talking about.Wggrant (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. This issue has now been addressed. rmal21 (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this species also occurs in Europe - I found a specimen in my garden in Pontypool, Wales UK yesterday, which was why I ended up at your very informative article. It would be interesting if you could include details about its distribution outside North America. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.130.136 (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)