Talk:Dermestidae

this is a very interesting article and also very informative. the pictures really help bring everything together and helps anyone interested understand the context better. it would be better if you could include some kind of history on how these critters came to be in north america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansha4521f (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article, I wished ours had pictures now. One thing I noticed and am not sure if you have done this, I can't find on your page where your pictures are referenced. So maybe if you make it clear where they are referenced from by putting a link below the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdkws1986 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I really liked how this article turned out. This article was straight forward and down to the point. I enjoyed looking at the pictures to help get a better understanding of what was being discussed. I also liked how different beetles were given sub-topics and had a brief description about them. Aggie turtle21 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) aggieturtle21

I liked how this article was organized, specie by specie with headings and everything. Much easier to read and follow and the pictures were great, it's one thing to describe what a beetle looks like and another to actually see a picture of what it looks like.-Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runwild2006 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the best articles I have read thus far. Grammar is fantanstic (I really could not find one error), and the overall information content is excellent. You provided adequate information under each topic. Plus you organized the article very well (probably the best I have seen so far). I wish I could critique you but I see nothing you need to work on!!!megalatta (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I realy enjoyed this article, it is more alive than most. The pictures make it and are backed up by awesome content. This topic made for a great project which is why the article turned out so great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmfc (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article! I like the way it is set up species by species. The only suggestion I have would be to move the information in General Larva Characteristics about feeding in the dry/skeletonized stage up to the Medicolegal section. It would make more sense if it followed after your statement that Dermestids show up 5-11 days after death. Moosenik (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should be recognized. It hits all the high points. They describe the many types of Dermestids and contained pictures. It gives the reader a chance to really understand what they are reading about. Dbw279 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is very informative. I really like the individual blurbs on each species. The only suggestion I have is to maybe create the page for each red link with a short blurb and then allow others to expand on those pages later. This would give the reader a brief definition of things like urban entomology and accumulated degree days. Great job! Alli5414 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Hey guys! I just wanted to let you all know about the Wikispecies project [[1]]. Your article fits in with their project, so look into it. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovery

Hey guys, great article! The only suggestion is that I saw in the introduction you have Dermestidae as being discovered by De Geer in 1774 as well as a link to a page. I see that in the taxonomy box you have Latreille 1804. Which one of these men discovered Dermestidae? Aside from this, everything looks good. I like the external links at the bottom. Kt babe8 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)kt_babe8

Thanks for letting us know about the mistake. We're currently researching who named the species first. Thanks again.--Angelina5288 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

peer review

Great job on the article! I have a few suggestions that would make your article better. The introduction is informative, however there are a few grammar mistakes. Since Dermestidae is a family, it's a singular word, so your first sentence should read: "Dermestidae is a family of Coleoptera..."

• When you list the common names, they should either all be plural (i.e. use the word "beetles" in all of the common names), or all be singular (i.e. use the word "beetle" in all of the common names).
• In your introduction, please give an example of a business losing millions, or give some sort of statistic other than "millions"
• Under your Larder Beetles section, I think there is a misspelling - did you mean to say "They also have two spin like appendages on the posterior end..."? Or did you mean to say "spine-like"?

I only posted some edits as to leave room for someone else to add in comments! Weilingz (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Great input--

• Actually, "Dermestidae" is plural, like all the taxa in the info box from "Animalia" on down. ("Smiths are a family of people...")
• All plural or all singular is something I can't get worked up about. If the text flows well, is readable and accurate, that's enough for me in that respect.
• Yes, we need a reference for "Some species cause millions of dollars in damage to natural fibers and can cost businesses millions when populations get out of control." (I doubt the cost of bow rehairs needed on account of bow bugs amounts to millions...) Anyone?
• "Spine-like..." fixed.

Thanks! __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is great. It is easy to read and understand. Most of my suggestions are about the pictures you did and didn’t provide in the article.

• The gallery at the bottom of the page is nice, but it’s just stuck at the bottom. I think it would be more affective if ya’ll place the pictures within the article.
• Is there any way ya’ll can get pictures of each of the species ya’ll discussed? I think it would make the article better by helping out people who learn better with pictures.

Overall, I liked the article. Good job!!

--Sadiezapalac (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We're working on it. Some of the images were already on the existing Dermestidae page, and the 'D. maculatus' images were taken because they were recovered from a raccoon carcass. We're still trying to get the other species, but it's a little harder than we had originally thought. Noromaru (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! this has everything one could ever want or need to know about dermestidae. this article is very informative and well composed. keep up the good work. love the image gallery --heartbreaker5785 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya'll did an amazing job formatting the article to the wikipedia style. I really like the image gallery and that you covered so many different species. AMFaris (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for you. I am part of the Home Stored Product Entomology group. Our entire page is composed of how insects effect stored products. Would you like to add a link in your Stored Product section that goes to our page here on Wikipedia. I think that it would be a nice internal link that would match up well with your section. You don't seem to have covered much in that section, and it would be beneficial for people to utilize the link that would go to our page if they were interested in reading more about stored product pests. What do you think?! (Lamanda14 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the suggestion. The internal link to your page is now in place.--Angelina5288 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya'll did a great job on your page!!! It is very indepth and easy to locate the information that you are looking to obtain. It really incorporated the beetles importance to decomp. --Cal101387 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is overall pretty good. There are a couple of sentences that don't flow very well. For example, the sentence that discusses Dermestidae's role in forensic entomology. The word since is used too much which causes the sentence to be choppy. Jbratz (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys awesome article, I loved how you incorporated pictures that were relevant and meaningful to the topic. Only a few things I noticed could be changed, when talking about the larval characteristics of the beetles, perhaps you could say "Larval characteristics" instead of "Larvae characteristics" this would imply all of the Dermestid larvae and tend to flow better in the page. One more thing, under the control section, you mentioned cultural and chemical control methods of IPM implementation, but are lacking in any sort of Biological control, ie natural enemies etc. If they exist, put a few down if they are relevant to the topic,etc or even just their natural enemies outside of the home/lab environment. Awesome work ! Lebl37 (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What’s up guys. Just a few minor things that jumped out at me… In the intro, “round oval” sounds, well, redundant. Also, you might want to explain what you mean by “antennae fit into deep grooves.” Otherwise y’all did a great job. The article is clear and concise with excellent pictures. Wudntulyk2no (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the article, very informative. I am glad to see the pictures as well as the written descriptions. I was really interested in learning that the beetles are used in natural history museums to clean animal skeletons. The only minor suggestion I have would be to have a picture of each species in its own individual section so a reader could look at the picture and read the details with an even better understanding. The article is easy to read and there is not too much technical jargon.(Jaycewright (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Very well done. I found the medicolegal section very interesting in that this species of beetle is very useful in determining post mortem intervals. I also think that the picture gallery was a great idea. Every group should be required to have one because this is what people are naturally drawn too. The only issue I saw was that there were a few words that were linked that had no pages created for them. Other than that, great job. cawinkler —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't get me wrong; I'm really glad you all showed up. The more critical eyes there are on this wikipedia thingy, the better it gets. Now here is the kicker-- the wikipedia is not at all about congratulating ourselves (or each other) on the talk pages. It ain't myspace here, it's an encyclopedia. The point is to improve the articles, not chat about them, and the talk pages are for hashing out the iffy bits, the issues where consensus may not come easily. A central principle of wikipedia is BE BOLD, which basically says, "If you think there's an improvement to be made, go ahead and make it yourself."

Rest assured that if your contribution stands the test of time, it is a worthy one. Other people will have their own take on things, and the process will continue to sort itself out. Like I said, I'm glad you all showed up, and thanks! So if you think there's something worth fixing in the article, take the bull by a horn or two and fix it. Pay no attention to the grumpy old men such as myself who may question your fixings and adjust them, or turn them around; we all mean well here, because, you see, another central dealy of wikipedia is ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Carry on; if you've got a difference to make, just go ahead and make it, and see what happens. __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was informative and interesting. The only things I can suggest changing are perhaps putting the "General Larval Characteristics" section right after the introduction, that way you're still dealing with the biological aspects of the Dermestids instead of jumping to their forensic relevance. Also, you might want to add pictures for each species so the physical appearances of each can be compared. Oh, the image gallery is a neat addition to this article! Super job! __Sweetypie2305 (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is very well organized and very well thought out.Horsenerd09 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)horsenerd09

Overall, the article is very factual and provides a sufficient amount of resources and references. I suggest updating the dead links shown in red; Thaumaglossa, Trogoderma and Accumulated Degree Days. These might have been Wikipedia pages at one point, but they are non-existant, now. Instead of deleting these links, I suggest placing an external link on these, because they are pertinent to your topic. Great work, guys! JRechy (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest shortening your introduction to just include a very basic introduction to your page. I would start with the first sentence in your introduction, include a brief amount of additional information and keep the last two paragraphs of your introduction. The more specific information that you have (paragraphs 2-3) should be in its own heading such as Key Characteristics or Biology. This would make the lead section shorter and give a section for the specific characteristics about this family before you jump right into the topic. Good work!Alexxmacc (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

- I enjoyed this article! My group did Trogidae so it was interesting to see the information that the beetles have in common. The only thing I would suggest would be lengthening a few of the sections, such as the Urban and Stored Products section. I believe adding more information would be beneficial in both strengthening the article and making it flow better. Good Job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhenry1216 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading yalls article. I liked how you had alot of information on each of the different kinds of dermestidae. I think others that come to your page looking for specific information will appreciate the time that you took to list the different details about all of them, ecspecially if they are working on an assignment or need info for a entomology test. Jared Davis Jcdvipertx2000 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this was a excelent article. It has been picked at, but peer review and others oppinions are what make this a great tool for education. I choose not pick at your article. Instead I was to express to you that I thought the discussions were great, and your responces to those discusisons were good. Nice Job! DanielIsbell 1212 16 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielisbell (talk • contribs) 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

classification authority-- de Geer, or Latreille?

Quick search found two references that call out Latreille: Look for "Explanation of Names" in this one and this one has him right at the top.

I suspect that de Geer may have described the beetles earlier, but did not go along with the Linnaean taxonomy. His wikipedia article says the was a contemporary of, and friendly with, Linnaeus. Anybody care to shed further light on this? __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

hmmm. Looking in the same reference the article cites for de Geer, I see Linnaeus classifying Dermestes in 1758... this needs the attention of someone who actually knows the real story. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

By the way, if you're wondering why all these editors suddenly showed up and posted, it's probably because they were required to as part of class. BuddingJournalist 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course; there's a banner near the top of this page that says so. I'd like extra credit to go to the ones that actually do something to the article, instead of saying something like, "great job, and could you dot this i, cross that t, and spread out the pix more..." on the "peer" review section of the talk page.

I'll say it again: the more critical eyes we gots, the better it gets. Carry on... __Just plain Bill (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed this article! My group did Trogidae so it was interesting to see the information that the beetles have in common. The only thing I would suggest would be lengthening a few of the sections, such as the Urban and Stored Products section. I believe adding more information would be beneficial in both strengthening the article and making it flow better. Good Job!