Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heptamegacanthus/archive1

Heptamegacanthus[edit]

Featured article candidates/Heptamegacanthus/archive1

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fifth featured article nomination for parasitic worms (3 pass, 1 fail), which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This article has went through an excellent and thorough GA review by User:Esculenta. I believe I've captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting[edit]

Hello again. I didn't say anything at the GA candidacy about citation formatting because it's not part of that criteria, but I can nitpick about it here:

need to pick a consistent style for author names; currently, there's a mix of full name, abbreviated first name with period, and abbreviated first name without period.

Done - I believe everything is now consistent with author names

It's unusual to give et al. after the first author; why not list them all (there's only 3) - Done
need to pick either sentence case or title case for article titles. I usually go with sentence case for articles and book chapter titles, and title case for book titles, but the particular style doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent. - Done (sentence case applied)
One journal name is given in full; another is abbreviated (unnecessarily, imo). - Done

Esculenta (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta[edit]

have you thought about redrawing any of the Heptamegacanthus images from the original paper? They all seem to be paper + ink, and could be readily recreated. Figure 1 and Figure 2 (male & female worms) could be combined into a single image for the taxobox, and an image of the proboscis (figure 3) would really benefit the article, as it's difficult to imagine what this looks like from text alone. WP:Graphics Lab might be able to help if you're not confident redrawing them yourself.

Thinking about this some more, this might not have been a good suggestion, as there could be copyright issues (redrawing an image essentially creates a derivative work). This may be a better suggestion: how about contacting the author and asking her to release the images under a Wikipedia-compatible license? Who knows, she might be delighted to have one of her obscure species being discussed and potentially featured.

Interesting proposition but I would feel bad contacting her unless I could say exactly what needs to be done to give licensing, of which I'm completely oblivious. Mattximus (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the article doesn't use Kennedy's 2006 work Ecology of the Acanthocephala as a source, which seems to be the major recent-ish general text about the topic of spiny-headed worms. Has this book been consulted to see if it discusses this species? Esculenta (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the life cycle section and found it quite similar to what I wrote, except worded far better than I did. Unfortunately nothing new, or if new just a general statement about acanthocephalan life cycle in general. Could not find any reference to Heptamegacanthus. Mattximus (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article doi:10.1654/1525-2647-85.1.95, Smales et al. discuss a specimen of Oligacanthorhynchidae they found in a South African rock monitor, not identified to a specific genus or species, which they compare to Heptamegacanthus, noting a difference in the number of total hooks (40–45 vs. 24). I don't know if this a worth a mention in this article, but since the literature is so sparse on this topic I thought I'd mention it. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat[edit]

Just a passing comment, but most of the paragraphs are long and densely filled with information, but only sourced to one source with a wide range of pages, which makes it difficult to check that the information is adequately cited. Looking at the first paragraph of the Hosts section, could you point to the pages where the worm measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width? Can you also give the page ref to support "in a process called molting"? Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, p 136 for all measurements (as the article is only 7 pages long I didn't think I need separate references for each point, should I do this?). And the molting I fixed by putting the ref directly beside that molting statement. I also added more refs to that large paragraph you mentioned. Refs should be more clear now, what do you think? Mattximus (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completed first round of edits, if not marked with done I've posted a comment/question. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM[edit]

Will have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comment that some paragrapgs are too dense and should be split up. The intro could be split in two, and so could Taxonomy and Hosts.

Broke these all up, and rearranged a bit to keep paragraphs consistent. How does this look?

Good, but now the first para under taxonomy needs a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) - Done[reply]

I wonder if the frame around the taxobox map can be removed somehow, maps in taxoboxes usually don't have them. - Done
Why are measurements in parenthesis? It's pretty crucial information.

I believe this was suggested by a reviewer, I removed parentheses around body length, would you recommend removing from all measurements?

Hmmm, never seen it done like that, where was it suggested? Seems unnecessary. Also inconsistently done now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do measurements only have conversions in the intro and not in the article body?

If conversions were given, the entire article would be a mess of numbers. Would it be preferential to simply remove conversions in lead and keep it metric? I would prefer to give the conversion in the lead only (as it is now) but I'm not fixed on this idea and will change if you recommend complete removal.

Perhaps if others suggest it too it should be done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review! Mattximus (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link and explain all widely unfamiliar scientific terms, such as proboscis.

Found several instances and added links.

"The species was formally described" Genus and species, it seems. - Done

"from a live sample" Multiple specimens?

Yes 5 males and 5 females, is this worth mentioning? I added this and fixed it to make it plural.

I would give the binomial in the first sentence. "The genus and species Heptamegacanthus niekerki was formally described in 1990 " - Done

"is a monotypic genus of acanthocephalans (thorny-headed or spiny-headed parasitic worms)" Each of these points should be covered under taxonomy too. That it is monotypic, that its an acanthocephalan, and the explanation of what that is

I think this is what you suggest.

There are a lot of WP:duplinks.

I have found only one and removed it. I thought that the links should be first instance in each section? I could be mistaken...!

Various terms are linked at second instead of first mention.

Found two instances and fixed.

"This is unusual for Acanthocephalans" Shouldn't be capitalised in its common form, look for this throughout. - Done

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review it within a few days, at a glance it looks like it could be a support when I'm done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, you could "advertise" this nomination by notifying relevant Wikiprojects and pinging relevant editors that may be interested in reviewing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think Esculenta may not have noticed my comments and might reply. By advertising do you mean posting on the talk page of wikiproject animals? Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and any other Wikiproject that may be of interest, like Tree of Life. FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the comments, but don't really have anything more to add, other than I really think the article would benefit from an image/images of the species. Have you seen Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission? Little effort required (write and send friendly email) for potentially very useful return ... Esculenta (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, advertised in both project, and completed a first round of your excellent comments, thank you. I await your replies. Mattximus (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple small things[edit]

"for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchidae" should either change the rank to family, or the name to Oligacanthorhynchida

Done and also noticed this sentence was unsourced! Added source. Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Taxonbar link is to the Wikidata item for the scholarly article where this species was described, not the item for the genus (I've changed the link at Wikidata and added some IDs; you might also want to create an item for the species and add IDs) Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all comments and await replies, thanks for everyone reviewing! Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]