Talk:Cleridae

Suggested changes and comments

First of all, you did a good job covering this broad topic. My group had to cover genus Chrysomya, so I know how difficult it is to include everything. One thing I will suggest is although you listed the subfamilies of the genus, maybe focus on one or two of the important species and mention them more in depth. Just an idea. Other than that, you had a very good description of the different habitats that Cleridae inhabits. I also was very impressed with the way you split up the forensic importance by stored product and medico-legal entomology. Overall, this article was very educational and very easy to read. Well done. Msrubar (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Msrubar

The article was informative and you did a good job of making it easy to understand. I noticed especially that y'all were thorough with inline citations. For a minor change under the 'Appearance' section: "The pronotum region is nearly cylindrical and characteristically narrower than the elytra (special hardened front wings), while the head is as wide or wider than the pronotum." Also, I think you should try to add more pictures to show the different appearances. Good job! Klfoster (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)KLFoster

Overall, it was a great article; I really liked all the pictures. I had just a few suggestions that might make it a bit better. First, under Identification, you mentioned "polyphaga", and I was not sure if it should be capitalized since it is a Linnaean classification. Also, you might mention how climate affects the life cycle. It may seem obvious to you that the higher the temperature, the faster the beetle grows, but it would not be obvious to all wiki users. Lastly, you mentioned that some species are scavengers multiple times, so you may want to talk about how a scavenger's appetite differs from the other species. Just a few ideas! I really enjoyed the article. (Mereharton (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you to all of you that have made suggestions. We will work to make your suggested changes, and continue to improve this page. Blm2010 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a great article, it had so much information, and it was conveyed in an easy to understand manner. I have two comments to make about this article: First, the section on feeding habits seems oddly put together to me. The style of listing this information seems unnecessary. You can easily right this information down in sentences, starting the sentence off with the name, and using the rest of the sentence to give the information. In the identification section, the fourth sentence does not flow, it doesn't seem to be written correctly. I think you completely erase the word also that starts the sentence, it makes that entire sentence a fragment, or you could put a comma after the word also, that would make the sentence make sense. Great article, thanks for listening! (--Rockymtv25 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Overall, great article. One minor error that I found was a capitalization mistake. On your General Characteristics section, "characteristics" should not be capitalied.Also, on the picture demonstrating the narrow pronotum, maybe adding "of cleridae" or naming the genus/specie in the picture would be a nice touch. --Skk1214aggie (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)skk1214aggie

Thank you to both of you for your suggestions, they have been taken into account and should now be reflected on the page. Blm2010 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. It was presented in an easily understandable way especially for such a broad topic. Just a few thoughts for enhancement. First, a link for the word elytra is already present on its first usage so you don't need the quick parenthesis explanation after it. Second, I noticed a link is not available for "eversible vesicles" so you put a quick parenthesis explanation after using it. However, I think it would be better to put the explanation after the first usage at the top of the article and not after the second usage that is mid-way into the article so the reader can know immediately what you are talking about. Thirdly, the sentence "Mostly the antennae are clubbed at the tip..." could use a little revision. It could sound more professional if the sentence went like "The antennae are mostly clubbed at the tip...", "The antennae are clubbed at the tip for most species...", or "The antennae are clubbed mostly at the tip...". Use whichever one more correctly conveys what you want to say. And finally, the sentence "Cleridae can be found in the Americas, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and even Australia." needs a comma after Australia. Overall, a great article. Loved the pictures! Jkski23 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all this is a great article. In the Identification part, I thought the fact that you took the time to explain/simplfy what some of the aspects actually were and looked like was very good. However I still would have liked to see so pictures or drawing of the actaul characteristics. Linde17 (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall the article flowed quite well. There are a few things that I would suggest addressing. In Geography and distribution: The last paragraph of that section you talk about nest robbers category. I had to go back and reread the section several times since it was a rough transition. Maybe instead of category the use of "genera" might be more appropriate? Also check your grammer in that paragraph. In Appearance: Please put a comma after Generally. Double check on saw tooth as well, I think it might be saw-tooth? In Development: I believe lifecycle should be two words not one. Also a technical question about the threshold temperature for development to cease in clerids...is there any research giving an actual temperature? The last suggestion I have is in Fedding habits: I like the mention of pheromones but is there any way to clarify if clerids are attracted to pheromones put off by their prey or do they produce a pheromone that their prey are attracted to. Again, I liked the article overall and it was very much like reading a story and that is good to keep people's attention. KathrynR (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel like a few sentences in the "Identification" section could be fixed to make it flow a little better. Possibly change "The key characteristics of polyphaga are that..." to "Key characteristics of the polyphaga are the hind coxa..." I would also change the "Furthermore, an important..." sentence to "Another important feature..." Also, would it be possible to incorporate the actual "two sets of characteristics" that distinguish the beetle in the sentence "To further identify Clerid beetles two sets of characteristics need to be examined." When I first read it, it sounded like a fragment and just kind of left me hanging. This is on of the best pages I've seen!! Yall did an awesome job! I like all this pictures that relate to what is being talked about. Trent1229 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article, very informative. The amount of material on this page shows a great deal of research done. There are a few little picky things that you might try fixing on your article. In the Appearance section you need to put a comma after "Generally". In identification section you could put a period after abdomen and pronotum and start the new sentence with "this". In the Devlopment section you could put a comma after "the warmer the temperature is". These are a little picky punctuation changes, but I think they will be helpful. Other than that, I think this a great article. Everything was well presented and I hope ya'll do good. H2342 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You introduced this article well. I like how the first few paragraphs give a little taste of what you're about the read and then you scroll down for further detail. I like clerid beetles a lot, so it is fun to read about them.

One little error I noticed is in the Geography section, I think it ought to read 'The nest robbers category lives IN shrubbery..' Also, I like how you have the tarsal formula in the identification section. It may also be useful to someone using this page as an ID tool to include that while the tarsal formula is 5-5-5, a clerid's fourth tarsal segment is usually rather difficult to see. The picture you have describing it helps to explain tarsal formula, but it may be a little misleading as far as the clerids are concerned. Also in this section, I noticed that you put the actual name of some leg anatomy in parentheses: (trochanter). This may be picky, but I feel that since the trochanter is the actual name of the structure that it should not be in parentheses. It would feel more professional to just say: '..is that Clerid's front coxae expose the trochanter.' You have a picture there helping explain anatomy.

Overall thumbs up! Kimberlyaggie2010 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)KimberlyAggie2010

I am truly impressed with this article; every section is very descriptive and informational. In your general characteristics section, I like the way you all differentiated between the appearance of Cleridae and ways to identify them. The identification paragraph was very distinct and straight to the point. I also noticed how you intertwined appearance in the development section "The larvae are covered in hair and have two horn-type projections on the dorsal area of the last body segment" good work because although you already discussed appearance, you still kept the topic flowing throughout the article. One suggestion I have is to try and find a picture for the forensic relevance section of your article such as a Cleridae feeding on carrion or on stored products. There is a wide variety pictures on your page so keep up the good work. This is a great article. Cassiegz (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the article! Cleridae had a lot of information to cover and overall it is very thorough. I feel like this webpage does a great job in touching every topic. A few small suggestions for the webpage would be to link the word "antennae" in the intro and "bark beetle" in the geography and distribution section. Also, there were a few grammatical errors found in the geography and distribution section. When you talk about "nest robbers category lives IN shrubbery and trees.." and also "feed only ON dead...". These changes are simple and easy but will make a huge difference on your page. Again, good job on the page! Amanda.turchi (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great article! I just have one minor suggestion. I read that under developement yall have two different number ranges.("28-42 eggs" and "37-72 hours"). You also have page number ranges on references 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 17. Wikipedia distinguishes between the hyphen - (used in compound words), endash – (used to separate ranges of numbers) and mdash — (used for punctuation). Number ranges and page ranges in references should be separated by an endash rather than a hyphen, e.g. 30–51, not 30-51. Most keyboards don't have endash or emdash keys, however there are some symbols just below the text window on Wikipedia when editing a page, the first two of which are an endash and mdash, and you can just click on them to insert them into the text. You have then endash correct on reference number 11. Otherwise, fantastic job!! K.reger13 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys did a great job. I noticed a few missing in's and on's in the distribution paragraph. You got some really great pictures, I would maybe try and find one of the different forms on antennae they can have. It flowed really well from one section to another, really good job. Baumgartner aggie09 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The information flows well with your specific topic. You offer in depth information about the appearance and identification. There could be more detailes regarding the medical uses and specific location of the beetle. The sections are concise and clear, i highly encourage more information for each portion of the article. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.173.18 (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was very informative but a few times through the paper it was a little repetitive. For instance the intro discussed the body apperance about to the same degree as the "appearence" section did. Maybe you could eliminate the key details from the introduction. Also the development section and feeding habits section repeat what they feed on as well. If you just eliminate it from one area then it wont seem as though your reading the same line again. Also when you discuss how they differenciate from Melyridae, you could also mention why they seem so similar and what exact characteristics they share. Overall you guys had loads of information that flowed very well, so a few adjustments here and there will do no harm. Hope this helps, great paper!! Kctaylor (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very good article. The pictures are great and make the whole page look well organized and put together. I thought every section was well written and had good details. The length of the page is great. The only suggestion I would make would be to maybe change the format of the 'sub-families' section. It just looks a little out of place compared to the rest of the page. Overall great article! Brookenikole (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This was a good article.I enjoyed the pictures. Great Job —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiecat (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say thank you to all the people who have commented on this article. Your suggestions have been an enormous help, and have allowed us to polish our page into one we are very happy with. For students still wanting to comment feel free to continue your suggestions, but I cannot guarrantee that your suggestions will be included in our final product. Thanks again! Blm2010 (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)