Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tylototriton (talk · contribs) 09:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, will start reviewing soon! Tylototriton (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review done, please address the points below! Tylototriton (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Article is well written. Only minor suggestions, see below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See suggestions below, especially on presenting species in a table. Suggestions now addressed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Refs are listed and format is good (but check italics for species/genera).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Inline citations are given, sources are good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research identified.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violation found for text with copyvio detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers main (known) aspects, but see suggestion for lifecycle. Clarified: known aspects are addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Overall OK, but check level of detail for species. Justification accepted.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit war or dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Licence for lead image needs to be checked. Lead image was not free but has now been removed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image (if free) is appropriate.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great work!

Lead

• Check lead image: The journal licence seems to say "non-commercial", which would preclude use on Wikipedia: https://revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/rpb/about/submissions

• I'm still kinda learning about the licencing of wikipedia, but is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 not acceptable? I believe you are correct that this is the current license of this image.  Done

It's the NC part (non-commercial) that's causing trouble, details here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing I've had the same issue previously... I'm afraid the image will have to be nominated for deletion on Commons and is not usable for the article. Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, these creatures are so hard to find images for. Removed.

Yeah, it's a shame... Tylototriton (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe give hosts and distribution in first phrase?

• Rearranged, but had to remove "intermediate hosts include termites" as the sentence had too many clauses. What do you think?  Done

Looks good. Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Second phrase: "the presence of" seems unnecessary.  Done
• Link segmentation (biology), monophyletic group, intermediate host.  Done
• "parasitize" already linked (parasite). Give some more detail, like "parasitize the intestines"?

• Removed this as the new sentence includes the intestines.  Done

Taxonomy

• What is the type species and who described it?

• Should this be repeated? It is mentioned as the last paragraph G. echinodiscus with a citation.  Done

I'd move this to the Taxonomy section. It's more relevant for the genus than for the species. Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, moved to taxonomy, I kept a similar sentence in the species area as well, in case this ever becomes it's own article. Hope that's ok.

• "Genetic data are not available" – data for G. echinodiscus is now available, so that statement is not true.

• Reworded, what do you think?  Done

Hm, with one species they can only say that it's sister to Mediorhynchus, so the part about the morphological distinctions in the phrase is a bit confusing (they don't show the genus itself is monophyletic and thus that the characters are synapomorphies). Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, however the exact quotation that I used is: "Molecular phylogenetic analyses recovered G. echinodiscus forming a well-supported monophyletic group with Mediorhynchus sp.,". The article is of high quality so I believe it to be correct, but I see your point exactly. Hmmm... what do you think, in light of this source?

I suggest replacing "confirms that these morphological distinctions form a well-supported monophyletic group with the related Mediorhynchus genus in the Gigantorhynchidae family" by "confirms that this species forms a monophyletic group with the the related Mediorhynchus genus in the Gigantorhynchidae family" (and no italics for the family). Tylototriton (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest removing the phylogeny, it's more appropriate in the Archiacanthocephala article. The information relevant to this genus is given in the text.

• It originally was not present, but was told in my nomination of Apororhynchus that this section must be included if available (it was not for Apororhynchus, but is for Gigantorhynchus) and it does place it into phylogenetic context relating to the previous sentence. I agree that it should be in Archiacanthocephala as well. I don't think there is harm either way in including this phylogenetic position among related genera, especially since this directly related the the text above.  Done

No harm, just a suggestion. I would, however, remove the link for the Gigantorhynchus species and instead make it bold. Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I also copied it to higher order taxonomy as per your other suggestion (Giganthorhynchidae), no harm having it there too!

Description

• Perhaps add a sentence on which characters are useful in distinguishing the species.

• I included this already "Species of Gigantorhynchus are distinguished based on the number and size of hooks on the crown of the proboscis, the type of pseudosegmentation, and size of the eggs". Is this not what you were thinking?  Done

Sorry, yes, that's good. Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Species

• This section would definitely benefit from presenting data in a table, with characters, distribution, and host as columns. The text right now is a bit unwieldy. Check which info is necessary and summarise across species if possible.

• I actually tried doing this first, as it his was my intuition. However after trying it, I found it looked much worse with some boxes being completely full of text and others with a few words, and still others blank. It ends up mostly blank space, and just looks weird. I then tried this paragraph format for Apororhynchus and it was nominated for featured article. To nominate this to FA, I will have to follow the same format, since the topic is *exactly* the same. I can rewrite as a table to show you the differences, it will take some time but I don't mind. I also echo your concern about too much detail, however to get the article to featured list they require it to be "comprehensive", so that if I cut say, the length of the proboscis measurements, they will say that the article is missing this information and it won't get promoted. This isn't to say that I'm not open to changing the format, it's just some things I've experienced already. Why do you think?  Done

Perhaps you could only present the measurements in a table, and leave the rest as prose? Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I moved almost every measurement to the table, and left the rest as prose. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hosts

• "Gigantorhynchus" not in bold.  Done
• The host images could be moved to a table under "Species". This could also avoid the squashed caption for the Southern tamandua image.

• I can see that squashed caption (any other way to fix this?), however the host section was advised that I include in my previous good article nomination and featured article nomination. I'm also trying to maintain some standard with the featured article Apororhynchus so that they are comparable.  Done

OK, I guess I am not a fan of very short sections in general. I think the images could be moved individually to the Species section, as the hosts are also mentioned there. Only a suggestion, I leave it to you. Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree with you, but will use the recommendation from the featured article nomination. However, I did add another sentence on intermediate hosts so it's a bit longer as per your suggestion.

Other

• I miss some information on life cycle, transmission etc.

• This is literally it. This article includes all information on these species from every source available online from google scholar or pubmed that I could obtain. Of the thousands of Acanthocephalans, only very few have life cycles known, or any other information on transmission and pathology. According to the main page, only 25 species have known life cycles out of all 1500 acanthocephalans. None are of this genus. However, if there is a source with this in it, I would LOVE to include it.  Done

No problem, and thanks for scraping together the available info! Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Italicise species and genus names in titles.

• I believe I caught them all.  Done

Thank you so much for taking on this review! I know this is a very, very niche subject, so I appreciate your time. I've answered all straightforward comments, and I've asked for your input on places with a  Partly done. I should have mentioned that as for formatting, I'm aiming to take this page to featured article, and thus need to keep generally similar to Apororhynchus in format (section on hosts, phylogenetic tree... etc) so that I can pass that next level with less trouble. Mattximus (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I've been thinking about your table idea. What if I included a summary table in addition to the text, summarizing just the key points? So if users just want an overview they look at the table, but if they want more detail, they can read the text. Would that work? I've created a sample in the talk page. Mattximus (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The summary table looks like a very good idea to me (only the first column should be titled scientific, and not common name of course), see comment about measurements above. But then I don't think you have to repeat the same info in the text again. Just refer to the table, e.g. "In addition to length and proboscis features (see table), this species ..." Tylototriton (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, still working on the few remaining comments, I count 12 done, 1 waiting your reply, and 1 in the works (the table). Mattximus (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this table... do you think I should eliminate the host and distribution columns and just focus on the measurements, leaving those columns for the body of the text? That should make the text more readable. Should I add more measurements (body length, proboscis length) in place of host/distribution? And then remove those numbers from the text? Just want to make sure you agree before making major changes. Mattximus (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply – I mainly edit on weekends. Table looks good; I'd use it for measurements as far as possible, basically all the things that disturb the text flow. Distribution and hosts can remain as prose. I suggest splitting the table off as a section "Morphology" after "Species" and adding one or two phrases on the main characters used to distinguish species. The "Species" section could then be shorter and easier to read. Tylototriton (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, yeah I will need some time to work on the table, but I agree with your recommendations and will proceed. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I believe I've addressed your comments so far, thanks for the review. The article is quite different now, so I wonder if you have further suggestions with the new format? Mattximus (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great work! Looks all good to me now – will pass the article. Tylototriton (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]