Talk:Forensic entomologist

Comments
Fantastic article! I love the overall structure and organization, it made it very easy to navigate and I wasn't left trying to skim through it all to find the information I wanted. The only thing I can think of to add might be the starting salary of forensic entomologists or what might effect ones pay rate. I also like the education section, but to that maybe add (and this is probably stretching how extensive you want to get into it but...) an example of the type of courses or courseload undergrads/grad students would be expected to take. Mari2111 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked how you broke down the rules for collection. In the next section however, a suggestion to ya’ll would be to ellaborate on how exactly an entomologist would use tools such as foil, forceps, or sifting screens. All-together good information here -tallfoo2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallfoo2006 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. I think it would be great if you could collaborate with the group 21 which did "Schools and organizations". The rest of the information however could be left in an artricle talking about what forensic entomologists do or expand that article to include what they do after they graduate and become certified. You all definitely went a different direction than most of the other groups. Quatrevingtsix (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice article guys, but it drags on in some areas. Try to break it up a bit to make it easier to read. Also, you guys could include important associations of forensic entomologist, or at least link to the article. Good luck on the project yall Azayed34 (talk) 21:19 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, guys. Make sure you make the changes that warning banner is requesting before the date, or this article will be deleted. ABrundage, Texas A&amp;M University (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any Ideas on how to fix our stuff? It seems like we need to add some illustrations and break the text up some. I can edit mine down to the bare necessities. Greg09Ag (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Once thing I noticed is that there is an article, although short, on medical entomology. You might want to change your pages internal link to direct to that page. I would also consider expanding the lead section to explain more on what your article is about. The sentence there is a little short and vague. Try briefly going over the topics you will be covering. --PinDr4gon (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to include how they incorporate entomology in law in the introduction, but I'm not sure how to word it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaga180 (talk • contribs)

You should also correctly reference your sources throughout your article.--Angelina5288 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I highly recommend you take a look at the WP Manual of Style. Just at a quick glance: the article title is capitalized as if it's the title of a book or film, so you may want to move it from The Forensic Entomologist to forensic entomologist. Also, the lines between each section is a little unconventional. All things considered, though, you're off to a good start! Good luck on the assignment! – ClockworkSoul 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing: I see you have references at the bottom, which is excellent. You might want to skim Citing sources to see how we handles references here. Good luck again! – ClockworkSoul 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the references under the title 'sources' for now and am putting the footnotes under the references title.Galaga180 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Make sure and reference people in a professional way (ie: "Dr. Tomberlin" as opposed to "Jeff" and use the full name "Jeffery" instead of "Jeff" the first time you reference him), and use footnotes for references instead of having just a sources section. This page is very informative though, and easy to follow! Good job guys! Labright (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited our introduction. Please tell me if you guys think it is better than before. Garza j e (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)garza_j_e

After looking at your article, I noticed you do not have any Categories on your page relevant to your topic. You should include categories at the end of your article to fit wikipedia's requirements. Here is the link to the Categorical Index--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! That was a very good suggestion. I have added some categories that I think we fit into, but I will keep looking for more. garza_j_e (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The paper seems like it has enough information, but maybe needs more specific details and examples of what forensic entomologists do. There aren't really any pictures either. Maybe show some entomologists in the field or something. Elaborating on the tools section would probably be a good idea also, not just listing what they are. (Medillar (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

I like the topic because it talks about an actual forensic entomologist. Yall can link the main websites of NAFEA and ABFE in order to give the readers more information on those organizations to make the information more complete. Mikearq (talk) 3:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job on your article; however, to make the article easier to read, breaking down long paragraphs into several paragraphs would be beneficial. With longer text, it might be better to break it into a few paragraphs. Just a suggestion, keep up the good work. Csb14 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a new case summary. AMFaris (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are just a few suggestions I have. On the first line under Data Collection maybe say they are required to collect copious amounts of data at the scene (instead of take) its more descriptive. Also the 9th line down where is says in addition....temperatures are needed since they are all essential to determining... Maybe make it temperatures are necessary for determining... I just thought that might make it less wordy but still get the point across. Thanks. --Jordanmurphy (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, good article, but one thing you might want to do is have more in-paragraph citations. I noticed the second half of the article (Forensic Entomologists of Today and section with the Cases) don't have any citations. Laylou11 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Under education, you should probably include some of the universities that offer this degree. If a lot do, maybe list the top 3 or something along those lines. I know that not every college in America offers this program and since it is something relatively new, there's probably not many colleges that send out fliers about their forensic entomology program. Also if you do add this is in, be sure to link the university's name to their wikipedia page. I'm sure that lots of prospective students will find this information a lot more helpful if you could make this minor adjustment. Lindseyjean11 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article sounds good. I noticed that y'all didn't have sticky traps in the tools list so I added them in for you; however I did notice that y'all talked about them in the insect collection paragraph. Austinh37 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to the education suggestion of including universities that offer this degree- there is no set degree plan for becoming a forensic entomologist. I believe this was discussed in lecture at one point. A focus in entomology is required but there are other points of emphasis that should/can be studied as well. AMFaris (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I do remember that. However I really think it would be very beneficial if you could include an example of a specific university with a good entomology program that offers an option (or a few classes specifically related to this field) that prepares a person to become a forensic entomologist. If you can't think of anything else, include Texas A&M. You could talk about a few of the most important, specific classes that are beneficial. I really think that it would be a lot more helpful that way. Lindseyjean11 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok so one group, Group #21 is listed as group 29 on the homepage for our articles wrote about the educational background for a forensic entomologist. You should see if they'd like to merge with your article or at least link them to yours'. It would be a really good addition to your page. Lindseyjean11 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a look at their article. I agree it would be a good idea to link to their article, so I did. It would also be good if they wanted to merge into our article. I will suggest it. Thank you so much for your input. garza_j_e (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that when talking about the undergraduate education there should maybe be some examples of where all these courses are offered. I believe forensic entomology is a great major/minor that many people would be interested in learning more about, so many people might find it helpful to know where all it is offered. Also I wanted to say that yall did a fantastic job of describing the work that goes behind a forensic entomologist and what all their qualifications are. The only thing that I think yall might want to stress is what a forensic entomologist is NOT qualified to do, such as declare the cause of death. There might need to be some emphasis on how lawyers can trap you in court if you are not careful with your reports and conclusion and how every specialist needs to stick with their field of study!!! Otherwise this is a job well done!!! --Cal101387 (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous Cases - some additions, corrections, van Dam trial
Faulkner wasn't consulted by the defense: even though he testified for them, he was originally brought onto the case by the police.

His dates were from the 16th to the 18th, and were calculated from noon on the 28th, not from when the body was found (2 p.m. on the 27th).

Police surveillance of Westerfield began on the night of the 4th.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What source are you using? If you have a reliable source, there is no need to discuss on the talk page before correcting the information on a page. Be bold! and remember to cite your sources. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the heading more prominent. I think I see how it's done.

This article was originally an "educational assignment", rather than a regular Wikipedia article, so I think it would be preferable for the originators to correct/update it.

More fundamentally, now that all the relevant dates are included, it can readily be seen that the entomology pointed strongly in one direction, while the jury reached a verdict in the opposite direction. That should be a matter of considerable interest and concern to the forensic entomology community, as well as being an appropriate point for inclusion in this article. However, as this could be controversial, I think it should rather first be discussed on the Talk page.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To assist people in commenting on this issue, here are my thermal energy calculations for Brown Field, a nearby airport and official national weather service weather station. It is at the same altitude above sea level as the body recovery site at Dehesa (maybe 15 to 38 feet higher), and was used by three of the four entomologists on the case: Haskell, Goff and Hall. Two of the hourly temperatures there were missing: one on the 4th and one on the 7th. I estimated the missing value for the 4th, and used Goff's value for the 7th (which was probably calculated by Haskell).

Thermal energy in Degree Hours at Brown Field, February 2002 Date Temperature  Fahrenheit (Base 50)   Celsius (Base 10) Mean (F)   Daily   Accumulated   Daily   Accumulated 27     60        177.5      177.5       98.6       98.6      26      65        322.8      500.3      179.3      277.9      25      57        162.1      662.4       90.1      368.0      24      56        141.1      803.5       78.4      446.4      23      59        192.4      995.9      106.9      553.3      22      74        600.1     1596.0      333.4      886.7      21      67        499.1     2095.1      277.3     1163.9      20      53        111.2     2206.3       61.8     1225.7      19      48         77.5     2283.8       43.1     1268.8      18      50         48.9     2332.7       27.2     1295.9      17      52         56.9     2389.6       31.6     1327.6      16      54         95.8     2485.4       53.2     1380.8      15      52        111.8     2597.2       62.1     1442.9      14      52         89.3     2686.5       49.6     1492.5      13      56        133.7     2820.2       74.3     1566.8      12      58        185.6     3005.8      103.1     1669.9      11      66        358.5     3364.3      199.2     1869.1      10      65        367.2     3731.5      204.0     2073.1       9      60        257.9     3989.4      143.3     2216.3       8      51         99.2     4088.6       55.1     2271.4       7      48         73.2     4161.8       40.7     2312.1       6      50        106.5     4268.3       59.2     2371.3       5      56        149.3     4417.6       82.9     2454.2       4      52        141.5     4559.1       78.6     2532.8       3      50        118.0     4677.1       65.6     2598.4       2      50         79.2     4756.3       44.0     2642.4   Average  56.2 The Celsius figures were arrived at by converting the Fahrenheit figures, so there are some small discrepancies in the Accumulated figures due to rounding.

We don't have many figures from the entomologists to check against, but Goff's total up to the 9th was 2222.3, compared to the 2216.3 above, which is very close. Even if we allow for his math errors, and him estimating the value for the 27th, there is still good agreement.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is now a book on this case, “Rush to Judgement” by Stevenson, available on Amazon.com. In addition to general information, it includes a detailed discussion of the entomology evidence.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Forensic entomology
A forensic entomologist is simply anyone who practices forensic entomology. Both articles have extensive overlap in content (e.g. taking into account weather, data collection). I realize that the plethora of forensic entomology articles come from a class project 6 years ago, but content and ease of finding information should dictate an article's existence, not the title. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)