Talk:Histeridae

Hister beetle

"Hister beetle" is much more common in Google, but there seems to be a push to change the common name because a) "hister" is Latin not English, and b) Hister is the name of a genus in the family. So I went with the newer name "clown beetle" (but note that there is a species of Carabidae also known as "clown beetle"). Stan 17:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I found the artical very interesting and am now filled with more information then I could ever possibly have found on my own. I did find the picture you guys had kinda uninformative. I think you guys could have found a much more descriptive drawing than that. williamthegreat1 —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We added more pictures and even a detailed picture under the anatomy section. We're glad you found the page interesting! Klfoster (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The overall organization and multiple pics was awesome.  Even a person without any background in entomology would have been able to understand your page!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.47.247 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 

Great article guys

Great article guys! The article has tons of information, but I still found it very easy to read. Some suggestions that I have would be to add a few more links in your page, so people can look up some of the more specialized words, and to add some pictures of a real beetle so we can see what they actually look like. Nice article though! (AggieKelly18 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections and added pictures. We are so glad you enjoyed reading our article. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey! this was a very well organized article. In the introduction, however, I would mention something about your current research, subclasses, and development paragraphs. I say this because the purpose of your introduction is to give the reader a "heads-up" as to what subjects are about to be explained. You were very thorough and included a good external links section. Good Job!Robertsonza7 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections and have been working on the intro. We are trying to make it more informative and more detailed. Good idea. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done on the article

Well done on the article. It is abundant in information and detailed. There were some typos that I noticed will brushing through though. In the section characteristics "Adukt stages" should be "adult stages". Also in the anatomy section "The Hister beetle haa an exoskeleton" should be "The Hister beetle has an exoskeleton" and "mammel's lung" should be "mammal's lung". Besides the typos, I would have also like to have seen information about how Histeridae interact with other species (who they compete with, are they symbiotic or parasitic to or for other species, and how they aid for pest humans). I have been mentioning this to many other groups as well. I really enjoyed the illustration of the anatomy and the taxonomy list was very informative. Again, I just want to say good job for the well written article. Gothikcow21 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections. All the typo are fixed. You did a great job proof reading. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor Changes

Great article, you all put a lot of effort into researching the Hister beetles. I know it can be difficult reigning in the vast amount of information out there about families since my group did Cleridae. Your introduction is almost there, but a little bit more expanding would not hurt. I am happy you put pictures into you article especially the beetle anatomy picture it greatly helps with the readers understanding. Another thing I noticed is that your pictures need to be set to thumbnail. You have the write coding just remove the pixel setting in each, my group was suggested to do this by our peer review. For portrait pictures use the upright command.

To follow Wikipedia trends if not guidelines I suggested you change your citation subheading from bibliography to references. Also, I am not sure I understand why there is inconsistency in your citations. To clarify, I suggest you work to try to make all your references in the in text footnote format instead of listing some as footnotes and others by as single citations. Also, verify that you have the date accessed for all your internet citations.

My final suggestion is to try and make two columns of species to prevent the excess scrolling to get to the rest of your page. Great work you guys and I look forward to seeing your page get even better! Blm2010 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections and fixed the reference section. We are also working on getting the chart into two columns. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job guys! This is a great research article for visual learners with all of the graphics & the way the layout is. Under the anatomy the graphic is good. You guys did a good job describing the Hister beetle & its origins. I like how the Development & subclasses are layed out. Genus & species seems a like a little too much (straying away from the species). It looks good though! Edbe (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. I'm not sure what you think we should change about the genus and species. Could you please be more specific? Our page encompasses genus and species of Histeridae as well. We're glad you like the graphics! Klfoster (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Impressed

I think this article is well written and very informative. Great job with all of your research on the Hister beetle. I liked that you cited all of your sources/references so that the general public can access individual information and have a variety to choose from.

Also, great pictures and tables. Visual learners will appreciate that. Great anatomy picture guys!!! [:

One thing though on importance in forensics, you might want to say approximately when the clown beetle shows up (like what stage of decomp they like).

Great article!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmedina21 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections. We are working on refining the page and making it easier to read. The Hister beetle shows up at the body at various stages depending on the species, so I gave specific examples instead of lumping it all together. Your suggestions really helped. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nicely written article! I had expected to find something negative to say about this page because the topic is a family and not a specific species. I assumed that it would be a little easier as there is more information to pull from. From the looks of it though, you successfully sifted through all that information and compiled the important parts into a fantastic page. I also think the way you wrote this page was excellent from and entomology aspect. It easy enough for someone with a non entomology background to still understand, yet it is not "watered-down" enough for an entomologist to lose interest. Ptshults (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Overall, you guys did a good job on writing the article. The page is a little rough and needs some cleaning up. In the section of the characteristcs, the sentence about retracting the head into the prothorax is a little wordy, so it might sound better if put a different way. Under the anatomy section you have a typo where "haa" I am guessing is supposed to be has. Also, when you talk about the mandibulate mouthparts, it should be plural, not singular. You guys have a ton of information and just need to spend a little time fixing the minor things! Great job guys! (Melissasimons (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I found this article to be very impressive in the amount and scope of information presented, so great work there! I did notice a rather significant mistake in the first paragraph - I'm not an entomologist, but I've taken enough entomology courses to know that if you refer to a beetle as a "bug," you'll receive a scalding lecture on the difference between Hemiptera (true bugs) and Coleoptera (beetles). For that reason, I would definitely change the statement "The Histeridae beetle is a very diverse group of bugs..." to saying beetles, insects, or even arthropods. Just not "bugs"! On a different and much pickier note, I noticed a great deal of formatting errors throughout your article in terms of spacing between headings and text and inconsistent hyphen use in the "Development" section. The content is great, other than a few grammatical errors, but I would try to clean up the formatting so that all of your hard work can be well represented. Great job with research though! Well done! Ecbraley (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections and fixed the infamous "haa" error. Thank you for catching on mistake on calling a beetle a bug. Good catch! Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hey guys! You all obviously did a lot of research for your topic, and I know it is hard to cover all the bases when covering a broad topic such as a family. There are quite a few typos throughout your paragraphs, I suggestion each group member re-read their section just to make sure. Also, some of your sentences are a bit rough and/or missing words.

In the anatomy section, "the elytra, forewings, are normally developed IN beetles", shoud be fixed. I also suggest re-wording the sentence about the hemolymph, it is analogous to blood in that it is nutrient rich and carries nutrients throughout the body, but is not a carrier of oxygen, rather than seperating into two sentences.

The only other thing that I found odd was that the Male and Female Structures was place in the Development section rather than the Anatomy. I recommend placing it in the anatomy section and renaming it to something more specific like "Copulatory Structures and Organs"

This was a very informative page, just needs some refining! Good job and good luck guys! Emmalee1250 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections. We have fixed the typos and are working on refining our page. We think that the male and female structures section flows better in the development because that includes reproduction stuff as well. The anatomy section is pure anatomy and we feel it might be out of place there. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice Job!

Hey guys! I read over your article and was very impressed. I found your article easy to read and very informative on Histeridae. I also thought the anatomy picture was very creative!

I did noticed one tiny mistake as I read over the anatomy section. The following sentence has a spelling mistake: "The Hister beetle haa an exoskeleton made of chitin which gives protection to the internal organs."

Overall, well done! i.love.salsa2010 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the correction. We are still refining our page. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I really enjoyed your article. Histeridae is one of my favorite beetle familes! I really enjoyed the Etymology section. That is something above and beyond the assignment that really adds to your article. Also, I like how the Anatomy section is long enough to include details that will help the average person who knows nothing about beetles and entomology. I also really liked the genus and species chart with the pictures. This is something a little different that most other groups did not do. I think the pictures really add to the point you make several times about Histerid diversity.

One grammatical thing I saw was in the first sentence of the Anatomy section- I don't think those commas are necessary. Also in that section right before the exoskeleton link, there is a 'haa' that I think should be 'has.' Then in the Forensic Importance paragraph, there is that same comma thing again around Histeridae. I'm pretty sure those extra commas are unneccesary. Kimberlyaggie2010 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Kimberlyaggie2010

Nice article. I really enjoyed reading it. It included alot of information that was easy to understand due to the diagrams and charts. I thought it was a little lenghty, but I don't feel like this is a bad thing because of the amount of information and charts and diagrams the article contained. The only suggestion I have is to maybe create more links to other pages. Other than that, this has been my favorite article to read so far. I really enjoyed it. Klovel (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections. We will look into the comma situation and fix those accordingly. We are still refining and making it easier to read. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Job!!

Okay I just really wanted to comment on how great this article is! I really enjoyed reading the entire thing. It was easy to understand and very well written! The diagram of the beetle anatomy and the table at the end of the article were my favorite parts!

But for the assignment, and wikipedia purposes, I think the only thing would be is to add more internal links to your article.

Amazing Job!

amahajan17 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on our page. We appreciate you taking time to read our page and make suggestions. We have made the corrections and are working on making more internal links. Thank you again! Mkw0509 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Job on the page! I thought it was organized really well. I liked all the pictures of the different beetles, i think over all it was a great page. Aggie2011 —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Great Detail

This is a wonderful article, guys. You can tell that you guys really put in some real effort to research material to use on this subject. My only suggestion would be that I know there is quite a lot of Histeridae info available out there, so while I did enjoy your beetle anatomy diagram and long list of genus and species...if you guys could post a couple more pictures for some of the other species that would add a little more to show the reader just how diverse this family really is. That's my two cents. Overall, great job guys!!!Bkret (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)BKret

Thank you so much for taking time to read our article. Im glad you enjoyed it. We have had a lot of trouble getting pictures to be approved. We are still trying. Thanks for the suggestion! We appreciate it. Mkw0509 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Development

I love the section about male/female differences in development patterns, the separation in the classes is a great space pattern. I think that the picture created via paint needs to simply just be deleted. Its obviously a crude drawing and has no proportional or aesthetic qualities that make it a credible source for information, and there is no learning properties educated with the simple picture, I believe that you would be better off with a simple picture of the beetle, with simple labels like you had for your sketch.Matthewdrew (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Most people have really enjoyed our anatomy picture. We will consider getting rid of it. Thank you for taking time to read it! We appreciate it. Mkw0509 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

etymology

I thought yall were very thorough with this section,it was very interesting, most articles dont include hw the species was named.Good job guys! --Anniemto (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reading our article. We are glad you liked it! Mkw0509 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)