Talk:Nicrophorus orbicollis

Nicrophorus orbicollis
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Binomial name
	Nicrophorus orbicollis; Say, 1825

Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beetles Mid‑importance

	Insects portal Nicrophorus orbicollis is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on early 2009. Further details are available here.

Discussion

This is an article as a part of the ENTO 431, forensic entomology course at Texas A&M University. It is designed to give students knowledge pertaining to the course as well as introducing us to how wikipedia works. We are looking for as much feedback as possible from the wiki community when this article officially goes up March 23. Please feel free to comment on anything from article organization, copyright infringment, and general ways to improve our article. I might be posting materials at different times so I can get a feel for how our article will look but if you feel it must be deleted until the whole article is posted I will have it saved in another format. Thanks and Gig 'em Wikipedia community! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHrider (talk • contribs) 17:12, March 11, 2009

There's really no such thing as an article not being up or not being posted. Once it's up, it's up. As it says in bold below the edit box, "Once you click the Save button, your changes will be visible immediately." --Geniac (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand, thank you. I'm new to this process and any input is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHrider (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really well wriiten article! There is lots of information that has been well written and well organized. I think you did a good job of incorperating all aspects-for example; under medical importance you said "there is little known". I think most people would have just left out this section, but i like how you included it in the article so that readers know not much is known rather than thinking the authors just didn't research the medical importance section. Also the article is written so that the general population can understand it, but with enough expertise for readers to learn something. Good job!!Klovel (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear that Klovel! We have worked hard on it and are still in the process of adding a few more relevant pictures and linking it with other sites. Thank you so much for the positive feedback, the wikipedia community has sure been helpful.--Jake (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well organized and educational.The section on behavior was especially informative. The picture illustrating the setae is great and well placed. The inclusion of and origin and phenology sections shows that a lot of time was put into researching this beetle, and you all thought outside the box on what to include. kudos.--Ctamez (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy Box

In your taxonomy box under binomial name, you can link to Thomas Say by putting:

(The whole code is not going to show up here, so go to edit this page to see how I did this) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

--Hieu87 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Hieu87! definetely missed that perfect link, done and done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.58.117 (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting and research on the article was very well done. The only thing I was a bit confused on was the sections on Behavior and Future Research. Were you still researching to find information on these sections? Because if no information was found, the subtitles should be deleted in the meantime. Nrey2009 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your right Nrey, we were still working on reasearch in that department and should of had it deleted in he meantime. I guess we just kept it as a constant reminder to finish it. But it is now finished and up on the page, thanks for the input. --Jake (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!! This page was excellently written but I did see a few things that might need improvement. I think you need to add more information about the origin of this particualr species. You probably could have included Phenology along with Distribution and location. The life cycle was very well written but it doesn't mention if they are holometabolous or not. The reproduction and life cycle were very similar in this facts, you might want to add of delete some of the similarities. Other than what was mentioned, this was very good. Keep up the good work!!Hellohello2011 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)hellohello11[reply]

Thanks for the compliments. We are working on getting our research posted for the "behavior" and "future research" sections. We will also look into combining the similiar facts from the suggested sections. Amanda.turchi (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a better way to organize it HelloHello, and we have now included phenology and distrubtion under one subtitle. Holometabolism is listed in the article under complete metamorphism which is then linked to holometabolous since their one in the same. However I have now included it in paranthesis after to aviod further confusion. Thanks for your input. --Jake (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great page. I just have a few comments and suggestions. I think there should be some information on the feeding habits or generally information of what the insect eat. This information could be included in the adult and/or larva section. I understand that this article is a work in progress but be sure to erase the Behavior sub-heading until you are ready to include information under it. Lastly, maybe you should consider linking the word "metepimeron" in the adult section to another article so that readers will have an idea of what it refers to. --Fjessie05 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjessie05 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is really good; it covers a wide range of information about the species and gives a general understanding of the insect. One thing that I found out recently was that if your sub-heading is two words, such as life cycle, only the first word is supposed to be capitalized. There were also a couple words that I thought could be linked to other pages such as metepimeron, and even sclerotized (can be linked to “sclerosis”). Lastly, I think that the categories that don’t have any information yet, shouldn’t be listed, you can easily add them back in when/if you write something for those sections. Overall, I think this article is very good and I really like the pictures and the details on its scientific and medical importance. Karalin11 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sub heading and categories have been fixed. I have also linked sclerotized but could find nothing to link metepimeron to. If you have something specifically in mind post it and I will link it. Thanks again! --Jake (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good start on the article! I have just a few suggestions. First, Wikipedia measurements should be presented in both metric and US/imperial units. This is most easily done using the convert template. So for the only measurement in this article, you could use "convert|15|to|22|mm|in|sigfig=1" make sure it is enclosed by {{WikiProject East Asia}}. You may want to convert your temperature to degrees fahrenheit as well. One cosmetic change would be to insert a line before the origin so it will left align with the other subtitles. Other than that it looks great! Good job! Shealamartin (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all the input! We took off the headings for now and put up the conversions of mm to inches and Celsius to Farenheit. TXAG09 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Great article!! Just one suggestion, though, on the pheneology you may want to add a bit more, for example, N. orbicollis overwinters and are also nocturnal. Any extra bit of information to throw out there is always useful to the reader. Also in the forensic importance section you may want to discuss the conflict that arises in the beetle's feeding on fly larvae and how it may affect the accuracy of the PMI, remember, if the beetle has been there long enough it can erradicate an entire population of fly larvae.--Kalyseg (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Kalyseg! We got that info put in there and it definitely added to the article! TXAG09 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article overall! A few grammatical suggestions: In the Distribution/Location paragraph, "east" in East Texas should be capitalized. You also want to itallicize the species name in Bahavior. Hope that helps some! --Kendrahewitt (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)kendrahewitt[reply]

Thanks Kendra, nice eye on grammar, not my strong suit, and we also fixed the italics issue. --Jake (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did an excellent job on this article. The Forensic section is very detailed and interesting. The close-up photograph of the setae is great for illustrating your description of the beetle. I have a suggestion that I hope is not too nit-picky. In the Interaction With Mites section, you use the the word "insects" to refer to mites. Mites are arachnids, not insects. In your sentence "N.orbicollis are sometimes seen interacting with other insects such as the mites of Poecilochirus," perhaps you should use the word "arthropods" instead of "insects" just to avoid misinformation. Otherwise, the article is very well written. Julianna1587 (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Julianna1587. That is definitely something that needed to be corrected! It has been taken care of. Amanda.turchi (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job! I liked the way the page was organized and the subheadings next to the graphic were a great idea. You may want to expand on the larvae section a bit because it doesn't seem to stand on it's own. Also, the only other thing I noticed were a few grammatical errors, so just look over it one more time and I think you should be good. Other than those two things, I didn't notice any more problems. Very informative and easily read; Great job! lagriega (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

First off, great article y’all. Just some suggestions to help with flow, citations, etc.

Link to:

Nicrophorus(introduction)

Palpi(morphology & taxonomy-larva)

Suggest adding “saprophagous” to describe feeding manner.

Flies(Scientific importance)

-(Morphology/Taxonomy) maybe “unites” to “units”

-(Behavior)Add citations.

-Switch all “Nicrophorus orbicollis” to “N. orbicollis” since the complete binomial name is the title of the article.

-(Behavior)(Life cycle) information is repeated among sections.

-(Behavior)(Reproduction) information is repeated among sections

-(Scientific importance) if N. orbicollis does not have economic importance, why is the subsection titled “Economic”? Suggest merging with “medical” and giving it another title more pertinent to the subsection content, perhaps “Nutrient recycling” or something along those lines. --user:aemejia22 (talk)22:20 15 April 2009 (CST)

Thank you for all your suggestions. We have gone through and made numerous changes to our page according to your advice. We believe these changes benefited our page. Thanks again. Amanda.turchi (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

First of all, great pictures. It helps to give a visual of what you are talking about and for those looking to ID this certain insect they will be able to with the pictures you provided. A few things need to be fixed. There a few links that don’t exist so you might need to change those. Also in the introduction I don’t know if you need to have a link to 1825 unless it talks about your certain species. In Phenology and Distribution there are a few grammatical errors with correct punctuation. In life cycle you have oviposition linked twice. Other than that, it is a very insightful article with good external links for further information. Barnesj (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! There have been some changes made. The link to 1825 was removed and grammar was proofread again. There are some links that we posted that do not exist (shown in red) because we had some concerns from other people that there should be a link or an attempt to link. Thanks again for your suggestions. Amanda.turchi (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antibiotic Secreted by the beetles

In the scientific importance section, including additional information about what the mentioned antibiotic is, how it delays decomposition, and perhaps when it evolutionarily developed would provide insight into how competition over the carcass is important in offspring survival. 2600:6C40:1F0:A0F0:8983:F43A:5FDE:6668 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category additions

This is a very well-written page and already very informative. Following are some general categories that could add to the behavioral information of this beetle: 1) Predation- There is no information on other animals that might feed on it. It would also be a good category to supplement a section on possible defense mechanisms it might have. 2) Habitat- The environment of an animal heavily influences its behavior, so this page could use a category describing the specific types of forest environment (or others) this beetle might thrive in beyond just naming the physical locations. 3) Parental care- The page states that larva are extremely dependent on their parents, so a category on parental care would improve this page and give more insight on the life cycle and behavior of this beetle. Alexiathia (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]