Talk:Home-stored product entomology

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)

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 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

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)