Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of parasites of the marsh rice rat/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:51, 14 July 2010 [1].

List of parasites of the marsh rice rat[edit]

List of parasites of the marsh rice rat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ucucha 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a first of its kind on FLC, and indeed is only the second such list of parasites on Wikipedia. I have had to consult many sources to compile this list (and got some help from Lance Durden, who has done some great work on ectoparasites, including those of this species) and I believe it is now complete. All entries in the list are bluelinked (except for one I discovered while checking dab links—I'll rectify that later today); I had to write new articles on most. If passed, this list will complete a featured topic on Oryzomys. I am looking forward to your comments and reviews. Ucucha 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've left messages at WT:TOL and at two user talk pages to ask for reviews of this article.[2][3][4] Ucucha 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Here's some thoughts on the intro. I'll read and comment on the rest later. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Sorry, I forgot about this (there's disadvantages to having 9000 things on your watchlist). I had a close look, but couldn't see anything to complain about. Very esoteric, but scholarly and thorough. Meets all the criteria for a Featured List. Sasata (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the title correct? Why not "List of marsh rice rat parasites"? Eg. "List of Amanita species" vs. "List of species of the genus Amanita"
    • I don't see much advantage in either title, to be honest.
      • One is more succinct, and doesn't repeat the word "of" twice. Sasata (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current title sounds more natural to me at least, though. But the decision is subjective and I have no real problem with your proposed title. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • is "intermediate host" equivalent to vector (epidemiology)?
    • The concepts seem similar, but I'm not a parasitologist and I prefer to use the phrase the sources use, which is "intermediate host". Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more information about parasites in the intro. Do the ectoparasites live on the skin surface? Burrow in the hair follices? Do they feed on flesh rat flesh or dead skin cells? Do they cause diseases to the rats? Do endoparasites flow through the rat's blood? Are they vectors for viral diseases? Can these parasites be transferred to domestic pets? Are mouse rice rats kept as pets?
    • I know the intro is rather thin, but that is because there are very few synthetic studies of marsh rice rat parasites (in fact, the only one is Kinsella (1988), which is also only nine pages). There are some papers that do answer some of these questions for individual parasites, of course, but I think it's hazardous to generalize from that. That said, I was able to add a few bits from Kinsella and something about Lyme. The marsh rice rat carries a hantavirus, but it's apparently transmitted directly rodent-to-rodent, not through a mite or so. As far as I know, there's no real record of diseases caused by the parasites in the rats themselves. On the one hand, I can't image it's good for a rat to have 30,000 worms sitting in its small intestine (Kinsella didn't even bother to count some nematodes individually); on the other hand, every single rice rat Kinsella examined was infected with some parasites, and those are normal populations. Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mentioned that 45 species on the marsh rice rat is "unprecedented"; are there similar studies with, say, Rattus norvegicus to compare to?
  • Support comments - taking a look now: sorry, got distracted and forgot about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need quote marks for using one word like "unprecedented". It might actually be better to clarify to "a number unequalled in other rodent studies (or does he mean mammals, vertebrates or all life forms?)
  • Well, I use quote marks because it is a quote. :-)
  • I just thought that altering it as above allows one to clarify what it is being compared with...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, clarified that it is unprecedented in rodents, and took something close to your suggested wording. Ucucha 15:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...'to its omnivorous food habits - I think I'd change it to "to its omnivorous diet"
  • Yes, changed.
is there any information on how any of these parasites impact on the health of their host? It would be great to add if known. if not known, is it possible to source a statement saying that their effects are unknown or poorly known?
  • No and no, unfortunately. As I wrote to Sasata above, they probably do have some effect, but the rats also seem to do pretty well despite having loads of worms with them.
I am wondering for accessability whether using common names would be better than scientific ones for the subheadings above each group of parasite. I can see reasons for both ways however.
  • In most cases, the "common name" would just be an anglicized version of the scientific name (i.e., digeneans, apicomplexans), which doesn't help much. I thought it would be cleaner to consistently use scientific names. For the groups that do have a real common name, it is mentioned in the first line of the introductory text.

Overall, looking pretty good despite quibbles above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a good exhaustive(?) list, from the biology dep. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • But please cite smartly, make a note that "Kinsella, 1988, p. 278" sources one column, unless otherwise noted.
    • Good point, done. Thanks for your support. I have little doubt that there are in fact more parasites that occur on or in O. palustris, but I have been unable to find more in the literature. (Notice, for example, that the endoparasites are almost exclusively known from Florida—if someone does a study of the scale and depth of Kinsella (1988) in Texas or Virginia, they may find a very different endoparasite fauna.) Ucucha 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments remarkably bold list and one I welcome whole-heartedly.
  • "an unequaled number in rodents" perhaps would be better as "a number unequaled in rodents"?
    • Yes, changed.
  • Any clear reason why prevalence is given in such a weird way (e.g. 14/29?) Perhaps a note to let non-experts understand why x/29 is such an important descriptor.
    • As explained in the key (and explained a little more clearly now), this is simply a fraction, and the reason for the /29 is that one study looked at the parasites of 29 rice rats.
  • Why include 0% places?
    • No good reason, really; I removed the one (?) instance.
  • Musser's ref seems to have a pp. despite it being only a single page.
    • Don't see what you're referring to.
  • Is it Pp. or pp.? and does it go in front or behind the page numbers? At least be internally consistent...
    • It is in capitals when it is at the beginning of a sentence, and in lowercase when it is not; it is before the page number when I would say "pages x to y", and behind it when I would say "z pages".

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would recommend each col is the same width from section to section, if possible.
    • Seems a good idea; how is that done?


Support Comments: Nice list! Just a few small things:

  • In the "Present in other species?" column, you switch between "Yes;" and "Yes," at least once or twice. (very minor)
    • I changed all to semicolons, except where it says "Yes, but".
  • The term "clade" is used without explanation or link under "Apicomplexa". Personally, I don't care... but not everyone would agree. I'd be happy with a link.
    • Linked.

Everything else looked fine to my eyes. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 16:17, 13 July 2010 (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_list_candidates/List_of_parasites_of_the_marsh_rice_rat/archive1&oldid=373549752"