Wikipedia:Peer review/Entomology and the law/archive1

Entomology and the law

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The Entomology and the Law article was created as part of a Texas A&M University class project. We would like to get some feedback about the quality of the article, any other sources we should consider adding information from, or any stylistic tips to make this a better article. Any feedback is welcome! Thanks so much! Kayla foster (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MusicalConnoisseur (talk · contribs) edit

Hello Kayla! I think I've helped one of your classmates in a separate group - entogirl88, was it? Anyhow, here are my peer review comments:

I'm a tad concerned about the title "Entomology and the law" because a page called "Forensic entomology" already exists. This is optional, though; but if you would like to change the name, see WP:MOVE
The main term here (forensic entomology) should be placed in bold text. Further, it should probably be bluelinked.
The introductory paragraph could be improved by added a few more bluelinks (one or two will do).
"Forensic entomology deals with the collection of arthropodic evidence and its application, and through a series of tests and previously set of rules, general admissibility of said evidence is determined." is a little awkward. Maybe "Forensic entomology involves the collecting of arthropodic data from a crime scene and its use to verify pieces of evidence."
"There are two basic principles that govern the acceptability of evidence." is unnecessarily phrased. It could be "Two basic principles govern the acceptability of such evidence."
Curly quotes are a bit taboo on Wikipedia (See WP:PUNC under "Straight or curly?") Presumably, it messes up the search formatting.
"Frye Standard It states..." is redundant. Also, "The" could be placed directly before "Frye."
"Frye Standard It states that the evidence must meet a burden of general acceptability as a valid source of information by the scientific community." is in passive tense. Try placing it in active tense for conciseness. ("The Frye Standard states that the scientific community must only accept the evidence after it is supported by a certain amount of valid information.")
"This test is used frequently to disqualify sketchy information such as bite mark comparisons, due to the scientific community’s general belief that this can be a subjective and unreliable source and could lead to false conviction or acquittal if used in court proceedings." is too long. Split it if possible.
"Daubert Standard The information..." is also redundant.
All items in a comma series must be parallel. Thus, instead of "The information provided by the witness must pass a two-part examination, it must be deemed relevant to the case at hand, and the witness must prove that it came from a reliable source," put "The information provided by the witness must pass a two-part examination, be deemed relevant to the case at hand, and be proven to come from a reliable source."
I forgot from whom it came, but once, a great writer wrote, "avoid the use of that greatly-overused word very. Anything else can stand in its place." If possible, find a synonym for it where you can.
"Scientific Method Although these..." is also redundant. Is there a formatting problem in the text? You can bluelink "scientific method" directly.
"Scientific Method Although these two decisions have been used as standards for many years, much of the decision about what evidence makes it into the courtroom depends upon the decisions by the presiding judge." is awkward. Although I'm half-inclined to fix it for you, I'll let you find an answer to it yourself here. =)
There is a double space under the paragraph "Admissibility of evidence and judicial prudence."
"...the reconstruction of events or places, identification as used in scientific tests, recognition by separating relevant and irrelevant information, by individualizing evidence by proving it to be unique to a suspect or a victim, or if it can be used in comparison analysis methods." Make sure that there are parallel objects in the series. ("individualization" instead of "by individualizing evidence," "usage of" isntead of "if it can be used in")
"All of these categories, though important, have a lot of gray area, allowing for the judge to have the final say..." is a tad colloquial. ("a lot," "gray area," "final say")
"...methods. (DNA, fingerprints, etc.)" shouldn't have a break between the main sentence and the parentheses that are a part of it.
"Allowing too much scientific data makes a case less subjective and gives jurors less of a choice in their deliberation, therefore some judges try to limit charts, graphs, and other forms of overwhelming scientific evidence in relation to a crime." Comma splice here. Instead, "Allowing too much scientific data makes a case less subjective and gives jurors less of a choice in their deliberation; therefore, some judges try to limit..."
You can insert the word "that" after "reasons": "This is one of the main reasons voiceprints and polygraphs have been denied admissibility in the courtroom."
In general, avoid beginning two sentences the same way. "These techniques are still used heavily in detective work, even though they are not admissible in court. These techniques help officers to find other types of evidence that can be brought to court and can help to ensure themselves that they are following the correct suspect." Try merging them or rephrasing one or the other.
"...read the data which can be supplemented" needs a comma before "which."
"One piece of evidence in a crime is somewhat meaningless. Many pieces must fit together and support the prosecution’s (or the defense’s) theory. Similarly, a judge will not grant admissibility to evidence that proves guilt or innocence without a doubt.[10] This rule is eagerly applied to matters of scientific evidence. It is preferred that the circumstances are reconstructed and confirmed in small pieces. The admission of these pieces is viewed as unfair to the other council and is denied." Ho ho! Not to be haughty, but this section is a bit choppy. I know some people who can help with that though; see the bottom of this PR.
It would be better to elaborate the lead sentence under "Forensic entomology as evidence in court."
"Most entomological evidence, or evidence dealing with the presence of insect larvae or adults being found at a scene, enters through expert witness testimony." might need to be cited. This is generally needed for sentences that include "most," "little," "some," or another numerical value that isn't specific. It sounds a bit extravagant to go citing everything everywhere, but it's protocol.
"Other important considerations" section should be moved under "Use of repulsive and inflammatory evidence" simply because sets that are "others" should be placed after all preceding sections.
"One rule that applies very specifically to forensic evidence is that the courts ban inflammatory or repulsive information or photographs." and similar sentences aren't needed. In an encyclopedia, it isn't necessary to introduce every new idea - just say it. =)
"...but they can be crucial in making their part of the case clear." This a little POV, or, in other words, a tad opinionated. In general, phrases like these aren't needed. It's great for an informal report, but as a headlong WP article, it needs to be removed.
"also helps preserve the Chain of custody for the evidence..." Here, I don't think "Chain" should be capitalized, even though the article on it is. Tip: for bluelinking words for articles that don't match the text you write, use a pipeline. The text preceding the pipeline is the name of the article, and the text after it is what will be shown. (example: [[Ludwig van Beethoven | Beethoven]] becomes Beethoven)
Two things about the phrase "...chain of custody record and receipts, and finally," Firstly, "chain of custody" should become "chain-of-custody" because it is used as an adjective. Secondly, "finally," probably shouldn't be here.
I don't think there should be a "the" in "Since the entomology expertise..."
The semicolon in "reasonable amount of security; from videotapes and photographs..." should be a comma.
I'm not familiar with forensics, but I think you should use "coroner" instead of "medical examiner/coroner."
Is "the maggot" needed in the phrase "dissecting the immature insect, the maggot"?
"In the same manner, when dissecting the immature insect, the maggot, proper records have to be taken too." could be "In the same manner, when dissecting the immature insect, proper records must also be taken."
"...all the specimen species are placed together in a vial and labeled" could be shortened to "all the specimen species are placed together in a labeled vial."
"Evidence is never in one place only; eventually, it has to be transferred to different places; whether it be from entomologist to entomologist, from the original site of the crime scene to a lab for analysis, of from department to department within the crime scene investigation units that are part of law enforcement organizations." is very wordy. Try "Evidence is never in one place only; eventually, it has to be transferred among two or more parties, whether it be between entomologists, from the original site of the crime scene to an analytical lab, or between law enforcement departments."
There should be a comma before "and" in "scenario for the crime and all relevant..."
"Copies of this report are submitted to the contact officer, the forensic entomologist, and as a courtesy, to the medical examiner." needs a comma between "and" and "as a courtesy." Further, it might be a good idea to explain what courtesy in a few words or one more sentence.
I am struck by the use of third-person in "course of your investigation." You can replace it with a relevant noun, but don't use "one's" or "someone's."
"i.e. dissecting, rearing, then a copy of the specimen disposition and identification form should also be included in the report..." could be enclosed in parentheses.
In general, avoid slightly POV words like "important."
"The main thing to focus on so that ideal preparation is allowed to happen is the Case Study Final Report" could be de-passived into "The Case Study Final Report is the main focus so that ideal preparation may take place."
"thing" is used frequently. It would be best to be more specific.
Another one, avoid "of course." It's best to assume that the reader is the dumbest being alive and doesn't understand the point of "of course."
"As the expert witness is being walked through the evidence, he/she has to keep in mind that most people have no thorough knowledge of entomology, so the responses to the questions being asked and the explanations about the evidence have to be kept clear and concise and in a simplistic manner that informs and educates, not only the jurors, but the judge as well." is a bit long. The LOCE will help you with that, though.
"thirty year old" should have hyphens between the words.
"on May 31st..." of what year? Also, "st" is not used after "31." (See "Dates" under WP:MOSNUM)
"well in southern Indiana it was clear they" needs a comma after "Indiana."
I have reciprocated the section under "Case Studies" in my sandbox here, just to demonstrate how the "See also" footnote can be done. To do it, italicize it, indent it by placing a colon (:) directly in front of it, and place it at the beginning of the section.
"But as seen in a new series of experiments..." is not accepted in an encyclopedia because it begins with a conjunction. (I know I do it, too. But that's just colloquially.) ;-)
Again, you can use the "pipeline" technique I mentioned earlier to turn "bodied blowflies. ([[blow-fly]])" into "bodied [[blow-fly|blowflies]]."
I've noticed that there are periods after the references (".[42].") They aren't needed.
It's best to link the technical jargon "STR → [[Short tandem repeat|STR]]." This way, you won't have to enter into descriptions about the terms in this article.
"In new research on the DNA analysis; "STR typing of human DNA from fly larvae fed on decomposing bodies" STR profiling" should be "In new research on the DNA analysis (STR typing of human DNA from fly larvae fed on decomposing bodies) STR profiling..."
A comma is needed after "On the other hand."
"On the other hand HVR sequencing was successful in all cases except one. So there is a slight margin of error when utilizing the STR profiling method of DNA typing in forensic analysis." should be connected.

GAA! Did I write that much? Sorry if I sounded too nit-picky. =)

*ahem* As to the overall article, phrasing and word choice is sometimes confusing and awkward. Passive sentences are used too often, and punctuation use is a little eccentric. Further, it may need to be wikified to meet WP protocol.

As to how to solve these issues, you can contact the League of Copyeditors (I belong to it, but I am only one out of the multitude). They're a good troupe of folks; readthis before placing a request for my buddies to help you guys out. And good luck on that grade! =) --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to reach me and see "La Pianista" instead of the connoisseur logo, don't worry; I've just changed my username. How does it sound? :) --^La Pianísta! 03:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not too sure about the title. How is this article's scope different from forensic entomology? Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from karanacs edit

There aren't very many wikilinks in the article. You should wikilink to words the first time they appear in lead and again first time they appear in the body of the article if those words would provide good information to the reader. Also, information in the lead should also appear in the body of the article.
The lead should be expanded to provide more of a summary of the article. See WP:LEAD.
If sections are very short, they should probably be combined. For example, Frye Test and Daubert Test are both short enough that they should probably not be their own sections.
In the Frye Test and Daubert Test sections, there are randomly wikilinked words that are not part of a sentence.
There are still large pieces of some sections or paragraphs that are uncited.
I think the article needs to start with a brief description of what forensic entomology is, then have a section on how scientific evidence is chosen to appear in court (combining several of your sections), then a section on Factors in submitting forensic entomological evidence, then a section on Records relating to a death scene investigation
There does not need to be so much detail about the Forensic expert's court testimony and the details of being a witness. This section reads more like a how-to manual (how to be a good court witness); this information should be in a different, general article, and should not be here.
Case studies should not be discussed in this article.
Overall, This article doesn't seem to have a solid grasp on its scope. Much of the information is very, very general and is not tied specifically to forensic entomology. From the title, I would expect to read about the particular pieces of the law that concern only forensic entomology (were laws or precedents set because of forensic entomology evidence?). What about a brief history section? When was forensic entomology first used in a lawsuit? The article is also very US-specific. The title may need to be changed to Forensic entomology and United States laws. Otherwise, the article should be broadened to include how the field is impacted by laws in various other parts of the world.

Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]