Talk:History of forensic entomology

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 21 March 2008. Further details are available here.

A fact from History of forensic entomology appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 March 2008 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Collected Cases of Injustice Rectified by Song Chinese investigator Song Ci documents some of the earliest work in forensic entomology?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/March.

Wikipedia

History of forensic entomology received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Comments

Hey guys--update this article as quickly as possible to address the concerns raised. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have been working to learn wikipedia over the last few days and it comes with a lot of experimenting in the sandbox and looking at other peoples code to see how/when to do things. I think I have most of it worked out now. PinDr4gon (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell--the article is looking really good now. Nice job so far! ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider tagging more links within Wikipedia -- if there is no content (red link) already existing, be sure to check various search combinations.

    e.g. Jean Pierre Mégnin vs. Pierre Mégnin

Use the Wikipedia Cheatsheet if you need it formatted differently. Noromaru (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look for more relevant pages to link, I just didn't want to go overboard and have links to random things that didn't really fit the scope of the article PinDr4gon (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was very well written and the case studies are very interesting. You may want to consider editing your references so that the same source falls under the same number.Hurricane979 (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider adding subheadings in order to better organize the article and make it easier to read. Check some of the other articles to see how they cited multiple instances of the same source. Motoliyat (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you link to a page displaying the reference style you suggested, as well as suggestions for subheadings. I already thought about adding them, but I figured it would just clutter it up and make it difficult and uninteresting to read. --PinDr4gon (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "case study" and "advances" are not really tied to the "history". The only history related is the "Notable forensic entomologists" section. I did a rough cut and paste of this article content into the Forensic entomology article. What do you think? Might need a little copy edit. If the history section becomes more detailed like this, maybe then could it be spun off into it's own article. The case study could fit the Insects section, or under a case study section, or maybe it's own article called Insects in forensic entomology or something.--220.255.7.228 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Case studies belong in Wikipedia articles. If the development of a case study was extremely important for some reason, and you are analyzing that case study, then you would include it. You could also have a paragraph with explanations of different techniques (taking key points from case studies), but a list of case studies by itself does not provide the reader with good encyclopedic material. Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We were trying to include case studies that had an impact on forensic entomology, not just a list of some case studies. I agree there needs to be some more elaboration on why the case studies were important to make this article more legitimate. --PinDr4gon (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because our article is history doesn't mean it can only be ancient history. The case studies are historically important studies that further solidified entomology as legitimate tool. As for advances, they are recent history. Things that are important to where forensic entomology is headed. --PinDr4gon (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the current Forensic entomology article, where the bulk of this article was copied into the "History" and "Modern techniques" section. The case studies, if worded properly to give context, could be moved over to that article too.--220.255.7.223 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! Your article looks great. Could you add some links to other subjects? Also, maybe on the Notable Forensic Entomologists section, you could add subtitles with each of these entomologists name. I'm sure that at least one of these people has a wikipedia page, so you could probably link a few right there! Lindseyjean11 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the article. Just a few suggestions - although some you've heard before.

I see that you've linked more articles, which is great, but in your opening paragraph, you link Sung T'zu, but do not link Megnin and other names. While other names do not have a linkable article, Megnin does, since you link his name later in the article. I think it would be best if you link name the first time it is mentioned instead of a second or later mention.

Another small edit: add a period so that 'Dr Bergeret' is 'Dr. Bergeret'

Maybe some pictures would be a nice touch... Good luck! Gdespejo (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard

I added this to the Friedrich Moritz Brauer page "Brauer identified the Phorid flies collected by the German medical doctor H. Reinhard, associate with exhumated bodies from Saxonia, thus contributing to a classic early work of [[forensic entomology) Beiträge zur Gräberfauna. (Contributions on the fauna of graves.) Verh. k. & k. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 31 (1882) 207-210".All that I could do since Mark Benecke had nothing on Reinhard and neither have I.I wonder why he exhumed the bodies? Notafly (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings

I thought the article was very well written and researched. I was thinking that it might make the article look more like the wikipedia style if you including subheadings under the portion of the paper where you talked about different cases. It would be easier to read and could break up that really large paragraph. garza_j_e (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]