Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apororhynchus/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [1].

Apororhynchus

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first ever featured article nomination, so if it not up to standard I'm happy to withdraw quickly. I conducted a little experiment to see if I could research and expand the article for the first animal listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Apororhynchus). I've now done my very best and appear to have gathered all the information I could from google scholar articles (there is not much out there on these tiny parasitic worms). Yes, I am claiming comprehensiveness (to the best of my knowledge) despite the relatively few lines for each species. Prove me wrong! I had an excellent good article review by Chiswick Chap which improved the article considerably. Fun fact: I'm also the creator of this article 10 (!) years ago. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

Looks pretty good to me, though I know nothing at all about the subject. The article will certainly have benefited from having the Chiswick Chap treatment, and all I can find to quibble about at a first read-through are the inconsistent –ise/–ize endings for "parasitise/parasitize". I'll re-read and look in again later. Tim riley talk 13:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC) (Incidentally, and not that it matters perhaps, is the date of 31 July 2019, above, the right one? Tim riley talk 13:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks! And yes Chiswick Chap's review was fantastic. And almost nobody on earth knows much about this topic (including myself!), I think I've incorporated every article that exists and is available on google scholar. "ize" has been changed, and date fixed. Mattximus (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After second perusal happy to support. The co-ordinator should note my total ignorance on the subject, but the article strikes me as comprehensive, well researched and referenced, suitably illustrated and a surprisingly good read. Meets the FA criteria so far as this layman is any judge. Tim riley talk 17:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out
Verifiability

Ref 8: rather a wide page range (273–305 = 33 pages). Can the citation be more specific?

Yep, found the url as well.

Done

Note (b) appears to be only partly referenced

Oops. Fixed now. Very bizarre reference but I think I did it accurately.

Done

Links to sources checked and working, per the external links checker tool
Formats

Ref 13: give language Done
Ref 15: Publisher - the book lists about 16! Maybe choose one and add "and others"?

Used your suggestion, but also happy to type out all 16!

Done

Ref 22: Language? Done

Quality and reliability: No issues - sources appear to meet the required FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton! I've addressed all your comments above. Mattximus (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Apororhynchus_hemignathi.png needs a US PD tag and author date of death

I added the tag with the death year of 1927. I think I did this correctly, this is my first featured article nomination.

What's the source for the latitudes and longitudes in the distribution map? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each sample specimen (only 1 or 2 from each species exist) have a location attached. The citation of each location is included in the respective paragraph. I searched that location on wikipedia and used the latitude and longitudes to create the map. Is there a better way of doing this?

I'm not sure what alternative to suggest, but there are problems with this approach. For example, one sample was found in Hungary - this is a good-sized country, but your dot for that sample specifies particular minutes which don't appear to be supported by any source. If we don't know where in Hungary the sample was found, this level of precision is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if it is actually ok to simply reduce the precision in the data, the map itself won't change at all since the dot covering Hungary is larger than the country itself! So graphically there is no issue with precision, just in the underlying data.

Thanks for your review! Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

Taking a look now.....

~~It'd be good to add that they are tiny or microscopic in the lead.~~ Done

~~Link cloaca in lead.~~ Done

~~The section marked Genus is more properly about the description/anatomy and should be called such. It does need a section on this anyway.~~ Done

There seems to be a lack of information on biology - the hosts section is very small. Do birds suffer and get ill hosting these things? Do we know? Does anyone speculate yea or nay?

A great question, and as far as I can tell there is no description of the effect on the birds, apart from the possible age at infection (which I included in the final paragraph) for one species only. The sources of information on any of these species is extremely scant.

Yeah a tricky one. Even ay source that says "the effects of infection are unknown" would be valuable here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes I would be happy to write that, but as of yet have no source which claims that. Hmmm....~~ Ok I found one reference! It only applies to one species, but it's likely it's generalizable. Added to host section. Done

Has anyone done any cladistics or DNA analysis on the group and its closest relatives?

I very much agree with the addition of this information (it was also brought up by Chiswick Chap in the GA review). But according to this recent paper [2] "insufficiency of morphological data seems also to explain why the taxon has not been included in phylogenetic analyses so far" so we are out of luck there apparently. This paper [[3]] claims to have molecular sequences for some related species, but I can find nothing on this genus or it's place in the larger picture.

Do you think it worthwhile to include this information in the article? "No phylogenetic analysis have been completed on this genus."

If a source says it, then yes! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep found the source that says that very thing. I added it to a new paragraph which I normally wouldn't do for a single sentence but it's not related to the other two.

Done

Great - the last sentence of the paper adds something about the anatomy and speculating on where the family lies in the Acanthocephala. It would be good to add something about this as it is about where these critters are likely to lie in the Acanthocephala family tree..fulltext at here..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that full text article you've given me allowed me to significantly expand the first paragraph of "description". It was a great find, thank you! I think I've incorporated all relevant information, and I'm just a bit weary of readability and closeness to the source material. I tried to summarize and reword, however I'm not sure how to approach list of anatomical terms any other way besides copying the list. What do you think Cas Liber? Is it an improvement? Mattximus (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is very difficult as one cannot sacrifice accuracy. There are some similar sets of words but I can't think of alternatives. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article seems a bit on the slim side but can imagine this might reflect the meagreness of knowledge about the subject. Still would be good to confirm/rule out above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And thanks for the review! All changes I could make have been completed. Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I found the last two points, thanks again for the review. I'm happy to continue to improve the article in any way. Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I think I am in tentative support territory in comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your review, and digging up that paper. The article is much better now. Mattximus (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

I'll have a look soon, but at first glance, I'm a bit puzzled that there's no taxonomy section? Especially since so many higher level taxa are covered here too. We would need a section that goes into the naming of each taxon mentioned here, as well as etymologies and authors. The current species section would be a subsection of the taxonomy section.
Likewise, there could also be an evolution/classification section, as well as one on behaviour/biology.

This I believe was addressed above. There has been no phylogenetic analysis, no behavioural, biological, or evolutionary information beyond what is already included related to the genus. All those would be great to add, but as far as I can tell, they do not exist. Information on this genus is extremely limited. And I do have a citation saying that no evolutionary studies have been done, and it is from a recent source. Mattximus (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even then, surely there is info on the taxonomic history, as in who named it, when, and based on what. Especially the many higher order taxa the article covers warrant discussion. Why so many, what do the names mean, etc., and I can't believe this info doesn't exist in the original descriptions. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who named it and when is included for every species, including a link to the original paper. I even added a discrepancy with the link to both dates for one species. The etymology seems to be the only thing that is missing. I have searched as best as I can and found 3 of the 6 species name origins. Only 1 has an explicit etymology source that could be found, however the other two are almost tautological (being named after a parasitologist and a region where the parasite was found). The remaining three remain a mystery despite my best efforts. Is this sufficient to meet your request? If not I am happy to work on any other issues that you see fit. Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the higher order taxa, such as the genus name. For example it is rather unusual for orders to contain a single family which contains a single genus. Since all these taxa are covered in this article, I expect discussion of them. I see the order was named by someone else than the family and genus, for example, so it leaves questions that should be answered here. Same with the etymology, what does the genus name mean? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I covered what you said, and placed it in a new section. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, anything on the naming of the family and order? FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good to spell out and link the names of the people mentioned in the text.

Great idea. I found a wiki page for Shipley and spelled out and linked accordingly, but no other authors.

Why to the species have links if they all redirect to this article? They are selflinks.

All links removed. Done

I think you could specify the taxobox image is a drawing and from when.

Changed to "Drawing of Apororhynchus hemignathi by Arthur Shipley in 1896. This is the original sketch of the first species to be described in the genus Apororhynchus." What do you think?

"of samples of species of Apororhynchus" The tripple of is repetitive, could be spiced up.

Changed to: "Worldwide distribution of Apororhynchus samples collected in the field"

"Infection can cause enteritis and anemia in Hawaiian honeycreepers" Surely they can't be the only species badly affected by infection?

I'm certain they all are, however this is the only record of any effect I could find for any of the species. No other article mentions anything about how the birds are affected (as far as I can tell)

"Apororhynchus species parasitize exclusively avian hosts" Exclusively parasitize would seem like a better order.

Order changed. Done

Have you searched places like Google Scholar and JSTOR for additional sources?

Oh yes, as far as I can determine, I've cited *every* article published on this genus. If there is any that I have not discovered, I'm more than happy to add them. Mattximus (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like retinacula, protonephrida, cement glands, as well as others, could be explained in parenthesis, as you do with other unfamiliar terms.

I added short descriptions in parentheses to these and a few others. I also wikilinked where appropriate. Great suggestion.

The infobox image still contains a selflink.

Fixed. Done

"and renamed by, also by" Double by.

Fixed. Done

"Although Apororhynchus has not been included in phylogenetic analyses thus far due to insufficiency of morphological data, the lack of features such as an absence of a muscle plate, a midventral longitudinal muscle, lateral receptacle flexors, and an apical sensory organ when compared to the other three orders of class Archiacanthocephala indicate it is an early offshoot (basal).[6]" This paragraph seems like it would fit more in a taxonomy section, or perhaps made into its own paragraph under description. Now it is lumped with rather unrelated text.

Yes, I noticed as this excellent review goes on, paragraphs are getting larger and less connected. I made your suggested change. What do you think now?

I wonder if Casliber thinks we could give a specific etymology for the genus name using dictionaries? Rhynchus means beak, at least...

I added a note with a link to the wikitionary for the Greek root rhúnkhos, which does indeed mean nose, snout or beak. Is this what you were thinking?

"The spines on proboscis" On the?

Nice catch, fixed. Done

"It was described in 1971[23] or 1966." Seems a strange discrepancy, sure it can be figured out?

The most recent publications all say 1966, however when looking for the original article, I could only find the 1971 version. It's possible this 1971 version is just a collection of older papers. The linked reference indicates how there was confusion and to use the 1966 date and not the 1971 date. I've made a request to WP:RX to see if they can find that very article in question.

Not all the species have their diagnostic features listed? Sources not found online can be requested at WP:RX.

I've requested one for Apororhynchus paulonucleatus, which is one of only two that lack diagnostic features.

The intro could be longer, as it is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Now there is no description, for example, which is a pretty significant omission.

I've rewritten the introduction, so it is now about twice the length. What do you think?

Thanks for this excellent review! I'm still working on some of your excellent comments. Mattximus (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again FunkMonk for this amazingly good review of this article, it's significantly better once again. I've addressed all comments (but awaiting your opinion and a reference that I've requested). Mattximus (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'll take a new look once the requested source is incorporated. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the changes look good, and it seems it will maybe take a while before the last source can be found, so I won't hold this back. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've collected one of the sources and will incorporate the description soon. Already incorporated the etymology. No luck at all on the Russian one, and similar doubts about the German article from 1931. Thanks FunkMonk on your review. It was so good you've inspired me to write another one of these articles! Mattximus (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Lead

"suggests a basal branching from the other three orders of class Archiacanthocephala; however no phylogenetic analysis has been completed." As it happens, I know what you mean, but I suspect that very few general readers will. Would it not be possible to phrase this more accessibly in the lead? With all of the technical details being in the main article?

I added two explantions for technical terms but I see what you mean about reducing the technical aspect. I will think about this one and get back to it.

I think it's better now. What do you think?

Still too technical. Just as a suggestion to get you thinking, what do you think of 'A lack of features commonly found in Acanthocephala (primarily musculature) suggests an evolutionary branching from the other three orders of class Archiacanthocephala; however no analysis has been completed to determine the evolutionary relationship between species.'?

That sounds good, I used your structure to reword that sentence, then reworded the next sentence accordingly. I think this is what you were suggesting all along, does it work now?

It does.

Link proboscis.

Done. Done

"that might have undergone complete reduction" Again, could this be phrased more accessibly?

Just removed it, it's too much info for the lead anyway I think... ?

"The proboscis receptacle and receptacle protrusor are also reorganized in this order." What is a "proboscis receptacle", a "receptacle protrusor" and what does "reorganized" mean? If that can't be succinctly summarised, then consider a more general statement. Just what the statement means will be explained in the main article.

I think that you missed this one.

Sorry, I missed this one. Sentence rearranged in a more summarized tone. What do you think?

Good.

~~"six species that are distributed globally" → 'six species that are each distributed globally'. (Assuming that this is the case.)~~ I see that it isn't. Ignore. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"being collected only sporadically in Hawaii, Europe, North America, South America, and Asia" It seems to me that "only" gives a meaning to this that you probably don't intend. Consider deleting it.

Done. Done

"These worms parasitize exclusively birds" Perhaps 'These worms exclusively parasitize birds'?

Done. Done

Article

"The first species to be described in this order" → 'The first species in this order to be described' might flow better?

Done, changed in two places.

Done

Link proboscis.

Done Done

"The name Arhynchus was chosen based on the characteristic absence of a proboscis" I think that you need to explain what Arhynchus means, or a reader won't "get it".

Yep, there is a note right after that with an explanation and link to wikitionary. Is that not enough? I can take it out of the note and into the body if you think that's better?

To be honest I missed the note. I mistook the [a] for a cite. Personally I would include it in the main text, which seems to be standard practice; but your treatment is acceptable. (I dislike the single letter footnote signifiers as I almost always miss them. Personally I use [Note 1], so a reader is fully aware that there is supplementary material. But [a] is more common, and even preferred by many experienced editors.

I would put your footnotes above your references.

I see exactly what you are saying, it was hidden beside the reference. I've moved it directly to the word itself so it will be impossible to miss. Also moved the footnotes. Great suggestion! Done

"However, it was later renamed to Apororhynchus" Delete "to".

Done Done

"the name Arhynchus being used by Dujean" Optional: → 'the name Arhynchus having been used by Dujean'

Done Done

"Although Apororhynchus has not been included in phylogenetic analyses thus far due to insufficiency of morphological data, the lack of features such as an absence of a muscle plate, a midventral longitudinal muscle, lateral receptacle flexors, and an apical sensory organ when compared to the other three orders of class Archiacanthocephala indicate it is an early offshoot (basal)." IMO, you need to Wikilink and/or explain - either in line or in a footnote - phylogenetic analyses; morphological data; muscle plate; midventral longitudinal muscle; lateral receptacle flexors; apical sensory organ; and, in more detail than "(basal)", what you mean by early offshoot. When this crops up elsewhere, I shall simply stste "explanation needed".

Linked morphological, phylogenetic, wikitionary for midventral, longitudinal. I cannot find a good explanation for muscle plate. A few more I will continue searching for.

Provided wiktionary links to more anatomical terms. I'm not sure I like this, as it seems like overlinking, but I believe it satisfies most of your concern.

That made me smile. Usually I am the one complaining of overlinking. I don't think that you have linked any words or terms that an average reader would be expected to know the full meaning of. This is a fairly technical article, so there will be a lot of links. If you differ, flag up the specific examples and we can discuss.

"microscopic" You have a consensus of sources for this? 2.5-5 mm is not what a layperson would consider microscopic.

Yes I agree. However it's certainly not macroscopic... any suggestions on an alternative word? "Very small" also doesn't seem precise.

Why say anything? If people don't have an idea what 2.5-5 mm is, then a single word or two won't help. How does "The genus Apororhynchus consists of ectoparasitic worms, 2.5 mm to 3.5 mm long, or 1 mm to 1.5 mm longer when distended." sound to you? At a push, insert "small" before ectoparasitic. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I've adopted your wording for the body of the article, but used "small" for the lead.

"motility" I think that linking to Wiktionary - thus motility - may be appropriate here.

Done Done

"the hooks (or spines)" Explanation needed.

Some references use hooks, others spines. Not sure how to clarify any further. Any ideas?

OK. Let's leave that one for later.

"neck retractor" and "receptacle retractors". Ditto.

Hmmm not sure how to describe without changing the source material. Retractor is simply a muscle that retracts, the receptacle is the part of the worm where the proboscis goes in, as stated earlier. Not sure how to clarify further here either.

Well you just explained them clearly and succinctly. Work exactly that wording into the text, or into a footnote, and I'm happy.

I added my explanation into parentheses, however I'm not sure if this is enough.

Looks good to me.

"the proboscis receptacle and receptacle protrusor both are reorganized" → 'the proboscis receptacle and receptacle protrusor are both reorganized'.

Done Done

"are no longer involved in" The "no longer" doesn't really make sense. (Assuming that you don't wish to go into a great deal of detail about their [assumed] evolutionary history.) Perhaps simply 'not'?

Yeah there isn't enough info to go into the assumed evolutionary history. Changed as you suggest. Done

"Two regions of musculature are considerably different in Apororhynchus compared to the other Acanthocephalan orders" and "Additional anatomical features that can be used to distinguish this genus among other acanthocephalans include" There seems to be a certain amount of overlap there.

Agree completely. With all these (excellent) reviewer comments, this section on description has two paragraphs but they are no longer containing distinct ideas. I think the content is still good but the wording now is a bit confused. Any suggestions here?

I have made a change to the article. See what you think. Feel entirely free to change or revert it if you aren't happy. I have tried to put a description in the first paragraph, and distinguishing features in the second. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Species

"There are six species in the genus Apororhynchus.[9][10] A seventh species, Apororhynchus bivoluerus Das, 1950[11][12] (also called A. bivolucrus) from an Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus) from India was considered to be a strigeid trematoda by Yamaguti (1963)." I am confused. Are there six or seven species. Is Yamaguti the only authority who considers Neophron percnopterus to be a strigeid trematode? Or is this the consensus?

In this case there are 7 names assigned to this genus, however one of them is not considered to be accurate. Modern consensus appears to agree with Yamaguti. It still appears on indexes, but in all articles it is not considered valid. It is often listed with a note like mine saying it's not real. I'm not sure how to rephrase this and am open to any changes, but what is written is accurate, however unusual.

Again I missed the note. Maybe 'There are six species in the genus Apororhynchus. Apororhynchus bivoluerus Das, 1950 (also called A. bivolucrus) used to be [/was once] considered a possible seventh species, but the modern consensus is that it is not.' Then put the vulture, India, Yamaguti stuff in a footnote? Merely a suggestion.

Link New World oriole.

Done Done

"which is likely a crested oropendola" I am not sure if that "is" should not be a 'was'?

Done Done

"A. aculeatus is the second parasite to be discovered" "is" → 'was'.

Done Done

"different host and geography" Should "geography" not be something like 'location'?

Agree with you, but that is the terminology used in the paper. Changed. Done

The origins of the species names is given in some cases but not in others. Would it be possible to fill the gaps for A. aculeatus, A. hemignathi and A. paulonucleatus?

No luck on the aculeatus and paulonucleatus. I did include a good description of hemignathi. I will try requesting hard to access articles. I tried at the reference request and no luck for paulonucleatus but they suggested I try the Russian wikipedia request. I don't speak Russian but I will keep searching.

No luck on finding the source

OK. If it's not in the sources, it's not in the sources. Can't be helped.

I'm fairly sure it is in the source, the issue is that nobody can find a copy of this old Soviet paper that would,in any event, require translation. There are just references *to* the paper, which is what I included in the text.

Do not hold this FAC up for it, but have you tried asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request?

"immature eggs around 0.035 mm to 0.015 mm" Possibly insert an 'are'? And it is conventional to give ranges starting with the smaller value.

Actually that whole sentence was worded weirdly. Fixed. Done

"A. hemignathi is the first species" "is" → 'was'.

Done Done

"due to the uniqueness" "the" → 'its'.

Done Done

"A. silesiacus was found in the cloaca of the European robin (Erithacus rubecula), the thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia) and the common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) in Wroclaw, Poland[25] and Hungary" Just checking that it has been found at both locations in all three birds.

All 3 at first location, 1 at second. Clarified. Done

Tweaked a little. See what you think.

"it is the newest Apororhynchus species to be classified" I know what you are trying to say, but what you have written means something slightly different. Perhaps 'it is the most recently classified of the Apororhynchus species' or similar?

Changed to it is the most recently classified species of the Apororhynchus. Done

"potentially also the intestinal wall" What do you mean by "potentially". Surely it either does or doesn't. If you mean something like 'sometimes' or 'in some cases', then say so.

Actually it is unknown if they infect the intestinal wall according to the most recent sources, however an older source does indicate that a sample was indeed found in the intestine. Have added your wording "in some cases". Done

In passing I note that a lot of your references lack identifiers - ISSNs, OCLCs, or whatever. WorldCat is your friend here. Scroll down for the OCLC.

This one took a while but I collected as many OCLCs for all those missing identifiers.

A fine article. I am impressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this very thorough review. These are all excellent recommendations. I will start working on them but it may take a few days to address all of them. Mattximus (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: As and when you feel that you have addressed all of my comments, could you give me a ping? Thanks. (I assume that you are still working on making the language of the lead more accessible.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! I will need some time, I want to address every signle one before giving you a ping. Progress is slow but consistent. Your review has been excellent and this weekend I will aim to finish everything. Mattximus (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view there is no great rush. And I can see that, as you say, you are making steady progress. When you are ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus. You ready for me to look over your responses yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. I have addressed every single comment you made, I think most are resolved satisfactorily, however each time I couldn't complete your request I made a comment for your input. Thanks again for this excellent, and thorough review. Mattximus (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; other editors do the same for me. Looking good. Five points above with responses needed from you. Plus: In "Description" you refer to "hooks (or spines)", then two sentences later "spines". Choose one, stick to it and parenthesise the other on first mention. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've addressed your comments. Thanks again, this is my first featured article nomination, and I received such great reviews that I'm very thankful. Especially for such a random topic. Mattximus (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you missed my point above. You use "hooks" (5 times) and "spines" (7 times) apparently interchangeably. Is there a reason why you can't choose one, stick to it and parenthesise the other on first mention? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, went with hooks throughout. Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have worked hard and have a very classy article here. More than happy to support. The first of many I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild for walking me through my first featured article nomination! Your review really made the article significantly better. Appreciate your time! Mattximus (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was enjoyable working with you, and if I ever get stuck for a reviewer for one of my nominations, I shall feel free to ask if you fancy being on the other side. Happy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Hi Mattximus, since this is your first FAC, we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. If one of the existing reviewers would like to carry that out, that's great, otherwise you can put a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just finishing up the last comments from the final reviewer now. If nobody does a spotcheck I will request above. Mattximus (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

Imma try to get a dual source and image review, here. All images seem to be adequately applied and licensed. Only one has ALT text. Regarding sources:

Thanks! Alt texts seemed to have been all there but formatted incorrectly, fixed. Done

1#Not sure that I am finding the text of the infobox that is referenced to this in the source.

This was a recommendation from an above editor. I added that caption based on the context of the source. That source is the first description of this genus. This is the diagram found within. Is there a way to word it a different way?

2#Don't have access.
3#Doesn't seem to support most of the information referenced to it, except for the "anus of birds" part.

Oops, not sure how that slipped into the lead. Removed. The location in the body of the text contains multiple references for all the information in that sentence.

4#Checks out.
5#Checks out, but proboscis receptacle, a receptacle surroundingmuscle (receptacle protrusor), retinacula, neck retractor, probos-cis and receptacle retractors, circular and longitudinal muscula-ture under the metasomal tegument, and a single muscular layerbeneath the proboscis wall in the source might be too close to the article text and cement glands are not mentioned in the source.

Yes I agree. This was a concern above from another reviewer, and the conclusion was that although it's too close to the article text, being a list of technical terms, it was determined that there was no reasonable alternative. Cement gland reference (#8) added.

6#It doesn't seem like this source or the other ones support the sentence cited to them.

Removed ref 6 altogether. However the following ref has the information you are looking for: "...these cloacal and potentially also intestinal bird parasites...". Mattximus (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7#large, globular, with numerous deeply set spirally arranged rootless spines usually not reaching the surface, or with none is exactly identical in the article as in the source. That and I don't think the parenthetical actually appears in the source.

Same reasoning as #5 for the identical list of technical terms. Parentheticals were suggested by another editor above to help clarify words, based strictly on definitions, which I don't believe need to be cited.

8#Checks out; any similarity of the text to the source probably falls under WP:LIMITED
9#I am not sure if the source says there are six or seven species. Otherwise, it checks out.
10#This one mentions seven species, not six. As with the prior, I see that #13 might endorse treating one of the species as not an acanthocephalan, but perhaps the wording could be changed to make the source-text contradiction less jarring.

Yes I agree that this is a bit jarring, however in this paragraph several of the sources show 7 species, but also explain that the 7th one is not considered accepted by taxonomists (in various wording depending on the source), not just #13.

11#Checks out.
12#Can't access this.
13#Checks out.
14#Can't access this.
15#I am not sure if I am seeing the Kauaian bird mentioned there.

2nd paragraph, hemignathus procerus, the old name for the Kauaʻi ʻakialoa (which is confirmed by the following sentence, with a reference)

16#There is something wrong either with the link or with the source, as I don't see "cacicus cristatus" mentioned.

Just clicked, it's there third paragraph from the bottom on the left column, on page 345. You should be able to access this link.

17#Checks out.
18#Checks out, but this and the preceding might work better with their references shifted around a bit.

Happy to do so, however I'm not sure how it can be better placed than it is now.

19#Can't read this.
20#Can't access this.
21#"srishailam" does not appear there.

I recall reading this. I believe it does appear there however it uses a different spelling, or an older spelling. I do not recall the original spelling to search for it, but I believe it's on page 211.

That should be clarified in the article, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22#Does not support the etymology.

Agree, moved the original citation for the naming of this species next to the description of the person to cover etymology correctly.

23#Can't access this.
24#Can't access this.
25#Can't access this.
26#I am not seeing the etymology and the research history in the source.

Not sure what you mean by research history. Reference 25 contains the original description which states that silesiacus comes from Silesia since it was found in Silesia so I can solve this issue by moving reference 25 to beside the etymology.

27#Checks out.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for your review! I've addressed all comments, made as many changes as I could, and when the change could not be made I commented for your advice/approval. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJE. As a bystander, and knowing that Mattximus is new to FACs, I was wondering if there was anything else for them to do? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:The only thing that I see which Mattximus might want to address is #6, I am not sure if it was resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I missed that one. I have the correct ref in place with the quote from the text, as well as removed #6 altogether. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK, with the caveat that I didn't recheck everything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all these incredible reviews. I believe I've addressed every comment. Mattximus (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.