Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leech/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2020 [1].

Leech[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about leeches, friendly little bloodsuckers in the phylum Annelida. The article has been a GA for two years, and we have recently added to its comprehensiveness and generally polished it up. Leeches are interesting animals, and we hope you enjoy reading about them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment - The "see below" link from the bottom of the infobox is broken. (the article looks excellent by the way) Mattximus (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, tidied that up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the nomination: LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, LittleJerry made his first contribution to Leech on 1 on 12 April 2020]], and five thereafter until 18 April 2020: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. All are very minor edits. The article was nominated on 16 May 2020, with him as the first nominator. His contributions in this review are minor ones, formatting, pinging, ... Am I missing something? If so, I apologize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They built the article but I encouraged them to nominate. LittleJerry (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They can thank you for the encouragement in the nomination note. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Some of the captions warrant citing
Refs added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images are missing alt text
Fixed by editing team. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added, author is unknown. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added, author is unknown. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Placobdella_2013_001.jpg: given that the uploader has an extensive history of having uploads deleted for copyright concerns, is there any evidence supporting the licensing claim?
Replaced image with File:Parasite180056-fig5A Placobdelloides siamensis (Glossiphoniidae).png from Parasite journal (CC-by-SA 4.0 license statement) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the original work first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wellcome Foundation states "circa 1832", and gives as source J.J. Grandville, Les métamorphoses du jour, new edition, Paris: Garnier frères, 1869, ch. 65, pp. 434-442, but he died in 1847; it was as Wellcome Foundation suggests probably first published during his lifetime. Added this on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Enwebb[edit]

I'll be claiming WikiCup points for this review (content). Enwebb (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of freshwater leeches, very few species tolerate fast-flowing water, the majority preferring the shallow, vegetated areas on the edges of ponds and lakes, or the pools and backwaters of sluggish streams. comma splice, that needs to be a semicolon or split into two sentences.
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some species aestivate during droughts, being able to lose 90% of their bodyweight and still survive. the subject of the sentence is "some species", which reads oddly with the last part ("some species" being able to lose 90% of their bodyweight and still survive.) I'd rewrite as "...and can lose up to 90% of their bodyweight and still survive"
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comes from the Latin hirudo, hirudinis, a leech which does it come from, hirudo or hirudinis? Or is it unknown, and that's why both are included?
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about what's going on in the 3rd paragraph of Diversity and phylogeny. Is this supposed to be internal divisions of the subclass? But if so, why is Branchiobdellida included? Your cladogram identifies Branchiobdellida not as an internal division, but as a sister taxon. So we're getting an infraclass and a sister taxon in the same paragraph without identifying how they're connected? It would be more helpful to frame it how it is in the taxobox: "Leeches are divided into two infraclasses, x and y. The more primitive x is..."
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first leech fossils are found in the Jurassic period... I would say they are from the Jurassic period, not that that was when they were found
Changed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's an annulate fossil? (looks like you gloss the term in the next section instead of at first use)
Avoided the term, which is used mainly of living leeches, so it wouldn't be ideal to define it in passing when discussing fossils. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing punctuation at the end of this sentence Like other annelids, the leech is a segmented animal, but unlike other annelids, the segmentation is masked by external ring markings (annulation)
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in whether you are writing out or using numerals for numbers 10-99 ("21 mid-body segments", "ten to seventeen pairs")
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on what a typical clutch size is?
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the file "PSM V17 D495 The medicinal leech" commented out in the section Feeding and digestion?
Currently unable to establish copyright status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps gloss "peristalsis"
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm worried it gets a little much "how-to guide" in the "Bites" section in discussing how to remove (and how not to remove) leeches. Maybe frame it as "Medical professionals remove leeches via x, and do not use y due to these risks"
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The death of George Washington is thought to have been hastened by excessive blood-letting unless he was excessively bled via leeches, I think this strays from the scope of this article
Added that it was via leeches. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that you've seen the book and verify that leeches are explicitly mentioned (I only point this out because some searching on Washington's death I've done just says "bloodletting", and I'm not seeing explicitly that the method was via leeches). Enwebb (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statement isn't necessary for the section so I've cut it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is horse leech a species? Can it be linked?
Yes, linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poem titles are in quotes, not italics ("Resolution and Independence")
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • seems to be a mismatch between this sentence Leech saliva is commonly believed to contain anesthetic compounds to numb the bite area, but this has never been proven and this one Leech secretions contain several bioactive substances with analgesic...effects
Removed "analgesic". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1999 is quite old for a molecular phylogeny. Are no more recent ones available? Enwebb (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More recent analyses have been of subgroups of the leeches. There doesn't seem to be anything on the scale of the cited phylogeny. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try this figure 2. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, used this; redrawn the tree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in fact, the North American leech fauna is largely identical to that of Europe this is a little vague/imprecise to me. They have the exact same species assemblages? 75% similarity of species? Complete overlap of families? Why would this be the case, also? You're implying something about leech biogeography, but stating it outright would be better. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source actually states "Much of the North American leech fauna is shared with Europe" so it is difficult to be more precise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm about done. Thanks for addressing all the points so quickly :) Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Enwebb:, we're finished. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anything eat leeches?
"Fish, birds and other invertebrates are the main predators on leeches", according to the Australian Museum. Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...that of a branchiobdellid, to the shell of a crayfish... I thought that the article established that branchiobdellids are not leeches?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has time to add some thoughts to the FAC for Horseshoe bat, I would be very appreciative. Enwebb (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support)[edit]

Interesting article, will review soon. HaEr48 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in good shape, well-written and referenced, and interesting. I know almost nothing about the subject but I can follow it for the most part. Thank you for working on this article. Some suggestion below:

  • Note: I plan to claim WP:CUP points for this review.
Many thanks for the perceptive questions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links needed for non-everyday terms like backwater and flat stones (unless it literally means stones that are flat).
Yes, just stones that are flat. Linked backwater.
  • Why is the classification described in the third paragraph of #Diversity and phylogeny different than the phylogenetic tree? They use some of the same names, such as Glossiphoniidae and Piscicolidae but organized differently. Another example: In the paragraph Erpobdelliformes is a division of Arhynchobdellida together with Hirudiniformes, but in the tree Hirudiniformes is a division of Erpobdelliformes. Could you add some explanation for the uninitiated, because it can be confusing?
I've broken up the third paragraph so as to describe the diversity of the families and the illustrated tree. I've left a brief mention of the traditional classification.
  • Euhirudinea have both anterior and posterior suckers: as opposed to what? Does Acanthobdellidea only have one sucker?
Many Annelida have no suckers; it's a plain statement of fact.
But this sentence appears right after we divide leeches into Euhirudinea and Acanthobdellidea. Does it imply that it is no true for Acanthobdellidea ? HaEr48 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What aprt does Hirudinae cover in the phylogenetic tree?
The traditional group cannot exactly be mapped as leech relationships have been found to be other than was supposed by earlier taxonomists. Put simply, Branchiobdellida was thought to be within Hirudinae, but Acanthobdella was not. The clade Hirudinida is a fairly close match. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for the explanation. Is it possible to say something to the effect of, "the traditional subclass Hirudinae does not exactly correspond to any clade in the phylogenetic tree"? Apologies if it's something obvious to experts, but it can be confusing for people who do not know what's going on. HaEr48 (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: what do you think about this? (re-pinging in case you didn't see it the first time) HaEr48 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first leech fossils: can you clarify if this means the oldest, or the first to be found?
The oldest.
  • the two main ones being on either side: Does "either side" mean right and left, or ventral and dorsal?
Right and left sides. V&D would be surfaces.
  • The coelom has taken over the function: Suggest "the channels" because it seems the preceding passage tries to not call them coelom.
Edited.
  • sperm is transferred to, and probably stored in, the vagina: How/when does it get transferred to the eggs?
Probably as the eggs pass through the vagina on the way to the gonopore, but the source does not specify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sperm is passed from one individual to another by hypodermic injection: would hypodermic insemination be a good link?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the jaws of Arhynchobdellids are at the front of the mouth": should we add "if any" here because the preceding passage says this group may or may not have jaws?
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the blades mentioned in #Feeding and digestion the same as teeth mentioned in #Diversity and phylogeny? If yes, suggest making them consistent
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro to the digestive system mentioned that the digestive system starts with the mouth and then successively pharynx, a short oesophagus, a crop (in some species), a stomach and a hindgut, but later we also find out about intestines. Could we mention intestines in the introduction passage in the second paragraph?
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many terms seemed to be linked at the second or later instance rather than the first, e.g. exopeptidase, endosymbiotic.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • this has resulted in leeches being used as model organisms for the study of invertebrate nervous systems: Could we more explicitly mention which aspect of the preceding paragraph makes it a good model organism? For me, it is not easy to guess.
Done.
  • cerebral ganglion above the gut: Does "the gut" mean the entire digestive system or does it refer to the stomach?
The system. Biologists habitually call the entire gastro-intestinal tract the gut.
  • In segments 27 to 33: but before we say there were 32 segments, which number is a typo?
33 is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to explain the function of the cerebral and the caudal ganglion? Is there a division of their function?
The ganglia are groups of neurones and might function as primitive brains, but the source describers them without mentioning their functions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • this only provides for about half of the leech's oxygen transportation needs: What is responsible for the other half?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "curl up and fall to the substrate when disturbed": does it still refer to swimming? Does "substrate" mean the base of the water?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of leeches in modern medicine made a small-scale comeback in the 1980s after years of decline: Do we know when the use of leeches declined and if there was an explanation for it (e.g. discovery that it wasn't really useful)?
It collapsed, along with the theory of humours, with the rise of scientific medicine in the 18th and 19th centuries.
  • The drug is manufactured by recombinant DNA technology: This is the only place we know that it is a drug, can we explain what kind of condition the drug is used for?
It's a naturally-occurring anticoagulant that can be used as a drug for blood-clotting disorders.
  • Can we be more specific about who manufactures it that way, per WP:AWW? Is it just one company, or is it a widespread industry practice?
It's becoming widespread. Another citation added.
  • In 2012 and 2018, Ida Schnell and colleagues trialled the use of Haemadipsa leeches …: I see the only sources are the research papers themselves. Do we have secondary sources for these facts?
No, but the papers are proof that the trials took place, which is all that's asserted here. Secondary (press) reports will not add anything. If we knew that the method had been widely adopted we'd say so.
  • In the lead, the cocoon of terrestrial leeches is "often concealed under a log or in a crevice" while in #Reproduction and development it is "deposited under a stone or buried in damp soil". Can we make them consistent or combine them?
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • bdellanea.blogspot.com seems to be a WP:BLOG. Any reason why we consider it reliable?
Dr Mark Siddall at the American Museum of Natural History is an appropriate expert. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap A blog is still not a reliable source because it is not peer-reviewed. It would be better to change it into an academic source. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.

-- Thank you. HaEr48 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well-written, clear, and informative, and my feedback above has been addressed. Thank you all contributors for writing this article. HaEr48 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • in having external annulations that do not correspond with their internal segmentation – maybe replace "external annulations" with "ring markings" (as in other places in the article) to increase comprehensibility, especially in the lead.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terrestrial Haemadipsidae are mostly native to the tropics and subtropics while the aquatic Hirudinidae have a wider global range – I wonder why the distribution of these two particular families are mentioned but not that of the other families? Are these two the most relevant/common/species rich? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're major families with distinctive distribution patterns.
  • The majority of freshwater leeches are found in the shallow – this paragraph on habitat and similar things does not fit under the section caption "Diversity and phylogeny", so a reader who is specifically looking for habitat information will have difficulty in finding the information.
It's part of the diversity information, but I have done some rearranging. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name for the subclass, Hirudinea – I would at least mention who named it, maybe also based on what species.
Done.
  • is the free-living polychaetes – "are"?
Reworded.
  • The body surface is divided into 102 annuli – Is it really the precisely same count in all species of leeches?
Expanded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • albumin-filled – link or explain?
Linked.
  • after which the adults of most species die – this is still about the marine leeches only. Or does it apply to leeches in general?
Just the marine species I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they are hungry, leeches use their anterior suckers to connect to hosts for feeding – "When they are hungry" seems superfluous here.
Done.
  • In general, sanguivorous leeches – this term is not explained in linked article. If it just means "blood-sucking", why use yet another term for the same thing here?
Fixed.
  • I wonder about the function of the suckers in feeding. In the lead it is mentioned "attaching themselves to a host with a sucker and feeding on blood", but this information is not repeated in the main text. They only attach with one of the suckers (the anterior sucker I suppose?), or can both be used? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Starting soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • General note: I will review the first paragraph by quoting both the sentence and the source; afterward, I will reference the sentence by number and first few words, and the source by the link. I apologize if I have made errors below:
Section 1
  • Sentence 1:"Some 700 species of leech have been described, of which around 100 are marine, 90 terrestrial and the remainder freshwater.[1][2]"
  • [1] [2007] says, in the abstract, "About 15% of the 680 described species are marine and slightly less have switched to terrestrial life; the rest are freshwater, divided among 91 genera." Later on page 130, they say, "However, morphological means allowed us to describe approximately 680 species till now, some 480 of which are freshwater."
  • 15% of 680 is 102 (OK for marine); This suggests that 680-102-480 (freshwater) = 98 are terrestrial when the total is 680. I am confused about 90 and 700.
  • I have changed the figures, but source #1 contradicts itself and the figures are estimates rather than precise figures. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 2:: The smallest is about 1 cm (0.4 in) long, and the largest is the giant Amazonian leech, Haementeria ghilianii, which can reach 30 cm (12 in).[3]
General note: [3] is available on the snippet view. Pages 471 to 482 (11 pages) have been cited together. I have some access so I will examine this source, but most reviewers will find this difficult.
  • The source [3] [2004] says: "The 350-some species of Euhirudinea are marine, freshwater, and terrestrial worms commonly known as leeches. ... The smallest leeches are l cm in length, and most species are 2 to 5 cm long. (WP article Euhirudinea says: "the true leeches, are an infraclass of the Hirudinea).
  • Are these the smallest and largest of the infraclass of 350, or as you seem to be implying that of the 700-species subclass Hirudinae?
  • Sentence 3: Except for Antarctica, leeches are found throughout the world but are at their most abundant in temperate lakes and ponds in the northern hemisphere.[3]
  • This is in source [1], not [3]: "They are globally distributed on all continents except Antarctica, reaching the highest diversity in the Holarctic region with one-half of all continental species."
  • It says "highest diversity," not "most abundant." I mean there is a correlation between the two, but not straightforward.
  • Not so. Source 3 states "Although leeches are found throughout the world, they are most abundant in north temperate lakes and ponds." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 4: The majority of freshwater leeches are found in the shallow, vegetated areas on the edges of ponds and lakes, or the pools and backwaters of sluggish streams; very few species tolerate fast-flowing water.
  • Source says, "Although some leeches are marine, most of the aquatic species live in fresh water. Relatively few species tolerate rapid currents; most prefer the shallow, vegetated water bordering ponds, lakes, and sluggish streams." (p. 471) No mention of "backwater." (Not saying it's not true)
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 5: In their preferred habitats, they may occur in very high densities, with over 10,000 individuals having been recorded per square metre (over 930 per square foot) under flat stones in Illinois.
  • Source says: "In favorable environments, often those high in organic pollutants, overturned rocks may reveal an amazing number of individuals; more than 10,000 individuals per square meter have been reported in Illinois" (p. 471)
  • Doesn't say "preferred habitat," only "favorable environments," i.e. "environments favorable to them," which are not always the result of preference. Not seeing "flat stones" (which many people associate with stone skipping) Am I missing something?
  • Rephrased, but if I followed the source as closely as you seem to be demanding, I would be guilty of close paraphrasing. If 10,000 leeches chose to congregate in a square metre under a rock, that was their "preferred habitat" in that environment, I would have thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. But you haven't mentioned that environment, a freshwater benthic zone "high in organic pollutants." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 6: "Some species aestivate during droughts, and can lose up to 90% of their bodyweight and still survive.
  • The source says: "Some species estivate during periods of drought by burrowing into the mud at the bottom of a pond or stream and can survive a loss of as much as 90% of their body weight." (p. 471)
  • The WP link Aestivation talks about estivating in shaded vegetation, rubble, ...but no mention of burrowing in the bottoms of water bodies
  • I think the leeches can aestivate wherever they will have the greatest chance of survival. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is true, but the 90% loss of body weight is a specific reference to estivation by burrowing. But I think you have changed this. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 7: "Among the freshwater leeches are the Glossiphoniidae, flattened animals mostly parasitic on vertebrates such as turtles, and unique among annelids in carrying their young under their bodies"[4]
  • [4] says: " glossiphoniid species are characterized as the only annelids that brood their eggs and carry their young under their dorso-ventrally flattened bodies."
  • Should have mentioned "annelids" earlier; comes as a surprise; unique in "brooding their eggs" and carrying their "young under ...," not necessarily unique in any one maternal quality. Are their forms of flattening other than dorso ventral?
  • They could be laterally flattened (side to side). Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I won't be doing every paragraph with such care, but I urge the nominators to go through the other sections with care and examine both their sourcing and phrasing. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I especially encourage the nominators to give specific page numbers (not a range) in the citation: Ruppert, Edward E.; Fox, Richard, S.; Barnes, Robert D. (2004). Invertebrate Zoology (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 471–482, which has been cited 19 times in the article, and each citation sometimes for more than one sentence. This is available only on a snippet view on Google books. Otherwise, I will be asking for the page number (and likely a quotation in some instances each time.) If you are citing several page numbers for a sentence then that citation too will need to be specific, not a range. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures. Though this has nothing to do with a source review, I have to say the pictures are beautiful complements to the prose. I'm mesmerized. Congrats to all who took the pains. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, and to the skilled photographers on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the sentence in the source, "Fully terrestrial ... humid rainforests in south Asia and Australia" (p. 480)?
  • If so, why "mostly?" Why "tropics and subtropics," a general term, denoting a larger region? Apologize if the page numbers are wrong.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A distinctive family is the Piscicolidae, marine or freshwater ectoparasites of fish,"
  • The source (1940) says, ... ectoparasites principally on fishes. However, species of the family are also ectoparasites of crustaceans (Salensky 1927, Mysis), Bivalves (Oka 1927, Oysters), and Reptiles ( Poirier and Rochebrune 1884). Is "chiefly" or somesuch warranted? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all leeches are parasitic; the Erpobdelliformes, freshwater or amphibious worm-leeches, are carnivorous ...
  • What are "worm-leeches?" The lead sentence says, all leeches are worms. Is this an expression such as "true leeches?" If so, "also called ..." might be helpful.
Removed, it's not needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the appositive "freshwater or amphibious worm-leeches" is a renaming of the subject. Are all freshwater or amphibious worm leaches Erpobdilliformes? If not please characterize differently, "a sub-something of freshwater ..."
Fixed by item above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirdly (sorry :)), is "blood feeders" exactly identical to "parasitic" for leeches? If so, (and this is not a biggie), from the point of view of a rank novice such as I, it might be simpler if you said: "Not all leeches are blood feeders; the Erpobdelliformes, freshwater or amphibious worm-leeches, are equipped with a relatively large, toothless mouth to ingest ..." (Not really that close paraphrasing, I think.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I will finish this section here. After that, would you like me to move the source review to the article talk page? I'm fearful of size issues here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can finish here. All we need is the source check. But we don't need every single source looked at. LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am doing a source and paraphrase check, and I'm seeing issues. I can't do a token check. Well let's see. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1–2, FN4–7, formats (publisher, dates, access dates, etc) are fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name for the subclass, Hirudinea, comes from the Latin hirudo (genitive hirudinis), a leech; the name was given by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in 1818. [9]
  • Whose etymology should be here: the common name leech or the Latin hirudinea or both? (See Golden jackal (which has only the common name) and Wolf which has mostly the common name.)
The Old English for "leech" is given in "In human culture"; it seems fine to give the etymology for the group's Latin name here and I think readers would miss it if it were absent. For the dogs, the Latin is rightly given at Canidae. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • finedictionary is like encyclopedia.com, it collects entries from out-of-copyright dictionaries. You can do better. e.g. OED or this (for leech).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Next paragraph beginning, "The phylogenetic tree of the leechs ..." with four or five sentences are all cited to this article. But the two trees seem to be different. In the article's tree, Acanthobdella (sampled from specimens of the arctic fish leech, A peladina) is sister to the entire clade of Hirunidea. In the article's tree, it splits off much further down the Hirunidea clade. Have I made an error? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made an error; I did a double-take when I compared the two trees, but I had not gone mad (at least, not on this evidence). The cited article has recently been updated after an "expression of concern", and the tree there has been revised, the article reissued. I have moved Acanthobdella to correspond to the new tree, and will revise the rest of the tree shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. PS In my post above, the first "article" = cited article, the second = the WP article at FAC. Silly me. I chalk it to my much thinking—around the same time—about "articles" in third, fourth, and fifth meanings (zero, indefinite, and definite) elsewhere on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, tree done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review cont'd[edit]

  • FN3 and FN8 to FN15 are fine (formatting, links, etc.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working backward with the source chec:
  • FN49 should be some version of: Jourdier, August; Coste, M. (March 1859), "Hirudiculture (Leech-Culture) (from La Pisciculture et la Production des Sanguesues (Fish farming and leech production). Paris : Hachette et Cie", The Journal of Agriculture, 8 (July 1857–March 1859), William Blackwood and Sons: 641–648, 641
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN50–61, OK with respect to formatting, dates, links etc.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN43–48, OK (formatting etc)
  • Spot check, "In Old English, lǣce was the name for a physician as well as for the animal, and lǣcecraft, leechcraft, was the art of healing.[46][48]"
J. R. Clark Hall remains an excellent source for Old English and hasn't been superseded. Marren and Mabey is solid and reliable: it's a major hardback of 500 pages with some 600 citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean we are using one source [45] which says, "In pre-scientific times, someone skilled in healing was known as a 'leech' (or 'leach'), and his or her calling as leechcraft. The name was shared with that of a bloodsucking worm, which was once as central to the healing trade as pills and injections are to a modern healthcare centre. In the TV comedy Blackadder, the Tudor clinic was full of leeches; pictures of leeches on the wall, jars of leeches everywhere, even a blackboard with a large leech drawn on it. It was presided over by a Dr Leech, whose answer to every ailment, ...," You get the idea.
  • We are then using another source for supporting the first source, which doesn't specifically group these words together. (ACAS is fine for reading Beowulf, but it is no longer cited much.)
  • Anyway, here's the OED (in case you need to use it: leech (animal): Old English lǽce, Kentish lýce strong masculine = Middle Dutch lake (Kilian laecke, lijck-laecke, modern Flemish lijklake), lieke, leke feminine; leech (human): Old English lǽce strong masculine (once lǽca weak), corresponds to Old Frisian (dative) letza, leischa, Old High German lâhhi, Middle Swedish läkir (Danish læge; Old Norse has the cognate lǽknir, and modern Swedish läkare, from the verb läka to heal), Gothic lêkeis < Old Germanic *læ̂kjo-z < pre-Germanic *lēgio-s; the synonymous Irish liaigh (Old Irish liaig, dative plural legib) is apparently related in some way.")
Replaced ref with Mory & Mindell 2014. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN16-42 are fine (formatting, linking etc)
  • Spot checks [36], [28], [21] are OK. I have already given a good vetting to Section 1.
  • I am flat out of time, so I will wrap this up. The article passes sourcing with no issues. It also meets the FA criteria for paraphrasing and comprehensiveness. So, it should be an FA without a doubt. But if the authors are interested in the Leech (which I assume they are) and not just passing, they should after promotion include some material from the following articles:
  • Kristan, William (2019), "Control of Locomotion in Annelids", in John H. Byrne (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Invertebrate Neurobiology, Oxford University Press, pp. 451–470, ISBN 978-0-19-045678-8 (in Movement). This section is a little thin and could use fleshing out.
  • So, all the best. The source review passes and the authors have my support in my regular review for promotion of their article Leech to a Featured Article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comprehensive review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leech/archive1&oldid=963994276"