Talk:Home-stored product entomology

Untitled

Overall, you guys did a good job very descriptive and well written. However, I think there could have been some examples of a particular case. When you’re talking about how there are many lawsuits in stored products it might be a good idea to give statistics this way one can totally understand how may you are talking about. (June21st86 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

This page is well written and informative. It helps the reader get a better idea of what types of insects are found in different stored products. I also liked how the group included the FDA regulations within the article;since not many people know the amount of insects that are found in different typed of foods. The article also includes what to do if faced with a problem from buying stored products.Aggie turtle21 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)aggieturtle21

Hey guys--take those banners very seriously. Make those changes before tomorrow so your article doesn't get deleted.

The article is reading a awful lot like an essay. Remember this is an encyclopedic entry (more like a scientific paper). Look at other entries and read up on Wikipedia's guidelines to make sure your writing conforms to the standards. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article. This information could be very helpful to many people who might come across any infestation problems in the future. Now they may be able to solve their problem on their own and not have to rely on others.--Kmh2003 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New Research

Hey guys! There's some new research out about the red flour beetle--you might want to go and read about it and see if you can incorporate it into your article. http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/538914/?sc=rssn ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why home?

I would like to query the addition of home to the title. According to Google: home stored product entomology is a new term that you kids have just dreamed up. The established term is simply stored product entomology. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the above comment was pure vandalism. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We chose Home Stored Product Entomology because Stored Product Entomology is a very broad field of Entomology. With the article being specificly designed to inform those suffering from home infestations 'Home' is appropriate, we feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosenbalm (talk • contribs) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Caps

Please point me to the page in the Manual of Style that says that stored product entomology must have capital letters. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We did not see where it was or was not when we constructed the page. Thank you for pointing that out. Crosenbalm (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

External Link

Hey great article. Instead of the link to a nonexistant wiki page I put in an external link to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Seems you failed to save the page after doing the edit! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Angelar. I went ahead and saved the external link you recommended.JRechy (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

The article was great and full of information. Some sentences could be shortened though because they are kind of runny especially in the intro. Also, numbers under ten should probably be written out. Otherwise great!! Txshinerblonde (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The major thing that I would suggest is a reevaluation of your introduction. It reads like an intro to an essay, not an encyclopedia article, especially the part that refers to what the article will discuss and why it should no be part of another article. This type of statement belongs in the text of the discussion, not the article itself. Otherwise it looks good to me. Another species that you could add into the list at the end is Sitophilus granarius, the grain weevil (it even has a short page about it). Colstewart71639 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Liked the way this article was organized specie by specie. Made it easy to read and find specific information. Pictures were great too-really added to the article and made it less monotonous. However, the introduction seemed long and little wordy. And also liked the inclusion of the FDA levels. -Lauren

The information here is great, I do believe that for some of the sections, like prevention for instance should be broken down. that is pretty much the only thing that I can see wrong here. There just seems like there is a lot to swallow here. It is great for others who want to do research. -tallfoo2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallfoo2006 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article - I think the pictures and the information are great. Just a few minor suggestions: Formatting wise, the heading 'Detection of Infestation' is moved over because of the picture, so just move it down a bit, so the heading is aligned. Another quick formatting suggestion, for the FDA Defect Action Level section where you have examples, perhaps you should move the 'Apple Butter' example down a line so it's clear and easier to read - or even add a line to separate as you did with the other examples.

Still, great job! Gdespejo (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just had a quick suggestion for you guys after reviewing the article. At first glance, this article is very dense. It would be helpful to eliminate any wordy sections and try to sum up the over all ideas here. Also, I think adding a few subsections or page breaks between different ideas may be beneficial to the readers eyes and concentration. Its looking great! --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! this article has come a long way. at first glance, i would suggest a merger, but your information is impressive and i love your organization. i dont think anything should be done to this article. while it is dense, the information is useful. possibly break up some sections into smaller ones--heartbreaker5785 (talk)

I agree with everyone else, this is an impressive article and the only thing that I would change is possibly providing some external links. In the end of your conclusion you state that there are many more pests that infest food items, you should include some of them in your external links. Foxracer11373 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your suggestions and edits. They have been considered and some corrected. Crosenbalm (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the article guys. I like all the pictures you provided of the specific species related to home stored product entomology, and the information you provided as well. In some parts of the article (mainly towards the end) the paragraphs are not linked. I noticed wikipedia likes to have as many articles link each other as they can, so try and link as many articles to yours. There is even a tool on wiki that does this automatically for you. Good luck with the project. Azayed34 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is very impressive as for the great amount of detail it covers on the subject. The only major thing I would suggest changing a bit is possibly breaking it up into smaller sections that are more specific or possibly even eliminating some of the 'extra' sentences. I understand that yall did alot of research and what to show it off (I would too) but sometimes reading long paragraph after long paragraph loses the readers interest. Most people come to wikipedia to get a quick reference to understand their relation to some subject. Great work though! You can definetly tell there was alot of work put into this article!!!--Cal101387 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the best article I've read yet! I loved all the pictures, it was formatted perfectly, and very well written. The only suggestion I can offer that has'nt been brought up is to expand the part about lawsuits. You talked some about different situations that can cause lawsuits. Consider adding specific, real world examples to highlight these different types of legal situations. People like to read about that kind of stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdurrum09 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, think about using quotes from professionals in this field.Mdurrum09 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a long and in-depth article! It is very well-organized but I have a few suggestions. In the first paragraph with the sentence "Although stored product entomology may seem a lesser-known subject, this branch of forensic entomology is extremely important, as it encompasses all cases involving the finding of insects in any food products. A stored product entomologist's job is determining if the product was truly infested before it was shipped, or purchased by the consumer, and..." I think there may be some unnecessary commas inserted between "important, as.." and between "shipped, or..". Also maybe you can put an internal link on "Defect action level" if there is another page on Wikipedia explaining that. And I had a question about the end of that paragraph- is it okay to refer to the article as itself (Where you say "this article..")? And then finally, the very last line under Conclusion seems a little repetitive as you just said basically the same thing a couple sentences before that. That's all I have. Good job! Laylou11 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job guys! This article is very thorough. The only things I would change would be the introduction and the conclusion. When I first started reading, I felt like this was more of an essay than an article (not saying the introduction is bad by any means). But, you might want to break it down and make it more concise and not as lengthy. Same goes for the conclusion. However, I really liked how you provided samples of the FDA regulations in different foods. Very interesting (and at the same time kind of gross). Good work! Sweetypie2305 (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is a great article. The only thing I think you might want to consider is adding a section on who is legally liable for damages of an infestation.(Micha259 (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

you guys have done such a great job! It is very professional and the information given is very helpful for someone who has no idea what home stored product entomology is. I think the pictures are great, for every time you talk about the different bugs that are most commonly found in stored products. I also appreciate how you are making consumers aware of the possibility an infestation in the food that they bring into their home. Good job gang! The only improvement that I would like to see is just that I wish there a defect action level page that supported a lot of what you were talking about, but there isn't! This isn't something I would expect YOU to change though  :-) good work team! --Brokenice928 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)\

We added an external link to our page that goes to the FDA Defect Action Level Handbook. Hopefully this gives more support for our claims! Thanks for the comment! (Lamanda14 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Wow what an informative article. I think you covered just about every aspect of it. I like how explanatory you where on the 5 most common insects, you did a very good job on what insect was related to what food group. Also the FDA section was in my opinion a good choice of a section to write about. Im sure alot of readers will appreciate that. On the downside it was really long but it almost had to be with the information you were trying to get across. Overall good job! Jared Jcdvipertx2000 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for you suggestions. Our page has come a long way and much of it is due to your help. We have put examples of other pest, with their links, a link to the FDA Defect Act Level Handbook, and we have also done some editting to the entire artical. Thank you again. Crosenbalm (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This group has created one of the best articles that I have read so far! There is so much detail and attention to every aspect of Home Stored Products which was a totally overlooked aspect of Entomology. The pictures are wonderful and they truly help views identify certain insects to the ones that they may potentially find in their products. Great job I really could not find anything too important to change.Thom2577 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! This article is really really good. It is definitely one of the better ones that I have read so far. It is really comprehensive and long, has lots of pictures, it even has a neat table with lots of information. Some people have complained on other pages that detection of infestations is more of a wikihow sort of topic. This is a lot of the articles contents, but I think it is ok if written properly that it would fit in an encyclopedia format, which I think you all pulled off amazingly! Great job!Cenire (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey group! The article was really interesting and fun to read! I loved it because I feel like it is information that we actually should know and could use one day. I have a suggestion on the conclusion. I feel like right now it just seems like it was thrown in there at the end, and doesn't really belong with this article. The whole article is so great, and the conclusion is just kind of "there." Maybe you could save the conclusion for when you turn in the project as part of the paper, or elaborate on it and make it a little better of a summary of this article. I really enjoyed yall's work! Awesome job! Kjw15 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good read, I found this subject very interesting. There was a couple of things I noticed. First the opening paragraph seems a little long. You might want to think about shortening it and moving some of the information to either existing sections or a new section. Another thing I noticed was that the title "Five Major..." makes it sound as if there are other insects that were omitted. Maybe change the title to just "Major Insects..." or something along those lines.Wateka (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome job, very informative. One thing that I may change is the common name for the drosophilid. I feel that it would be more correct to refer to them as either pomace flies or small fruit flies. The term fruit flies usually refers to the true fruit flies of the familiy tephritidae. 74.192.203.65 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Jessica Moore

Great article! I like how every one of the most common pests had a picture along with the detailed description to help in identification. I also thought that adding the FDA portion was a really big plus. It helps to know what exactly is allowed and what is not. I also really like the external link that you have to the FDA page. The only thing I would like to see that I don't is maybe links dealing with the common bugs in case more inforation is needed by a reader. Amazing job! :) Briteny 05 (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)briteny_05

Fantastic

Over all I think this is the best "put together" assignment. I like the way there are photographic examples of each beetle next to the descraiption. I would reorganize it though, I would put the statistics in the begginning. The pictures ( like most of these Texas a & M projects ) are awesome. Very well put together, great information, but maybe add some crazy, real life occurences that will blow people's socks off. It might take some research to find something worth labeling crazy but we are here to show the world inside the world of forensic entomology! Lopez stc1 (talk)

Tons of information on prevention, detection and eradication. The article is organized very well with plenty of pictures to touch on the main ideas. Tam712004686 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I know we are supposed to expand on "good job" and "well done" and offer some suggestions but I thought this paper was fantastic! Not only did you list each of the common species but you had pictures of each. I also liked the section on FDA regulations. Your paper is well organized and covers a vast amount of information! Thanks! -Kels032Kels032 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is very detailed, has alot of pictures which is very very good. This is good information. I especially liked the part of "dectection of an infestation", which had pictures showing how these infestations looked like. Because maybe someone had an infestation in their products and wanted to see what kind of infestation it was. They can go to this article and look at your pictures, and help identify more easily what type of bug it is and how to get rid of it. GOOD JOB.Sabm05mval05 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The introduction was a bit long and wordy but informative. You guys organized this article very well by putting each insect seperatley and discussing on what type of stored product foods each insect has a tendency to infest. It was great that you'll decided to put on how to detect if a product has been infested. Many people when gorcery shopping don't pay attention or don't know how to identify if a product has been infested. That will safe people time and money if they were able to identify an infested stored product. The FDA regulation were great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgo87 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was really informative and very in-depth. You guys did an amazing job by listing the common insects and having a picture for each of them. With that said, I think that some paragraphs are a little too long (i.e. eradication and prevention paragraphs). Try breaking the long paragraphs into smaller ones because it's really easy to get lost when staring at a long paragraph for awhile. I found myself having to reread some stuff over again. The section from the FDA Handbook fits nicely and breaks up the article well. The introduction did a really good job at letting the reader know what the article's about. It may be a little long, but it explains home stored product entomology really well. Maybe consider renaming your last paragraph something else beside "conclusion". GOOD JOB!! Best js 2007 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Most contaminated food

An agriculture scientist in the US told me that by far the most contaminated food in the US (with insect parts) is black pepper. Is this true? Can we find a reference?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on fruit flies and red flour beetle

The genome sequencing on the red flour beetle is completed, as you are probably aware. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325115859.htm. The article does not specify that it is in progress so I didn't add the fact that it is completed to the article. But that may be something to add.

For each of the five important stored pests you have a common name and a species name. In the case of red and confused flour beetles you have two species names. However for fruit flies you have one species name. Shouldn't that properly be Drosophila spp. ? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikification

I have completely rewritten the lead paragraphs and made some other minor alterations as part of the wikification you can help! project, a wikification tag having been placed on this article in December 2010. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The big 5

It looks like students put this together and did a wonderful job. However, I can't help but thinking that this "big 5" is a bit Texas-centric. Over here in Asia, we get a lot of maize weevils and such. Is this an international article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Home-stored product entomology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080805231925/http://www.padil.gov.au/browsePestRegions.aspx?menu=p2&group=1&o=1&id=6&paging=No to http://www.padil.gov.au/browsePestRegions.aspx?menu=p2&group=1&o=1&id=6&paging=No

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

Can we get clarification on the Indian meal moth? It seems that of the 16 times it's mentioned, it is spelled as one word: "Indianmeal moth" 6 times, but the other 10 times, it is two words: "Indian meal moth". I could change the 6 to match the 10 (assuming majority is right), but I'd like an expert to weigh in on this.

Thanks

WesT (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions on making the page more encyclopedic

I was thinking that we could remove the sections "Detection of an infestation" and "Conclusion" in order to make it seem less like an essay. What do others think? ProperGooseMan (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)