Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heptamegacanthus/archive2

Heptamegacanthus

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt at nominating this obscure worm. I believe I've made all changes requested in previous nomination, and peer review and captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance!Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by FM

Can you tell me from which date you made the improvements based on the last FAC? Then I can compare with my notes from back then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I made a large number of edits on May 8th just before the FAC closed, but it was not enough to garner support. I then went through all comments and did some rewrites on June 4th to try and make sure every single comment was addressed. Is that the information you were looking for? Also thank you for taking the time to review such an obscure article. Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've compared my last comments with the current version, and a few points still stand out, listed below. I believe that's all, but it's a bit difficult to figure out after this time. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviewers have suggested conversions for measurements, which has not been done.

I added this to the lead, but there are so many measurements in the body that it looked like a complete mess with double the measurements. I'm not sure that non-metric measurements are needed in a scientific article, apart from the lead which provides an overview. Is this critical to passing FA? It would make parts of the body almost unreadable.

There is still a good deal of duplinks. They can be highlighted with this script:[1]

Done. Thanks for sharing that script, I'm going to use it from now on.

Anything on on how the type specimens were collected? From one or more moles?

Unfortunately not, I did my best to relay all information regarding the collection from the original document. It's also the only paper to mention the sampling.

That's all three comments worked on, thanks again for your review. Awaiting your reply. Mattximus (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I won't hold it back for lack of measurement conversions, but if a third reviewer brings it up, it's probably time to add them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Femke

Thanks for working on the article!

Thank you for your review!

I find the first paragraph of the article too difficult. It's an article likely of interest to people how know much more biology than me, but I think some movement can be made towards an easier lead per WP:EXPLAINLEAD
Both the first and second sentence say the genus only has one species. The first does it with jargon, the second in plain English, right? Can we omit the first?
- I think I fixed the wording by merging the first two sentences.
  - We still have the scary jargon in there. Do we need the Latin name for the mole that prominently? Might be better to omit it from the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.
Maybe switch East London and Transkei upon first mention, so that if you skim-read, you're less likely to think it's a part of London, UK (with east london now positioned next to South Africa)

Done.

I would put the size of the creature much earlier, before delving into difficult things with its hooks and rings

Done

Not knowing what proboscis means, I found it really difficult to parse the text after. Perhaps starting with the trunk helps (so that we know the proboscis isn't the trunk).
- Here I added a definition of the proboscis which should make this sentence much more clear.
  - The sentence is now very long and more difficult to parse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rewrote this sentence, splitting it. Should be better now?
I find the rings difficult to visualise. From the lead, I hadn't guessed that the ring surrounds (?) the proboscis, as seems to be indicated in Figure 3 here

A diagram would help immensely but none exist that are free. I did try my best at rewording, does this work?

In the body you explain that insects are an example of an arthropod. I would repeat that in the lead for context.

Done.

There are no known aberrant human infections for H. niekerki species --> What does the word aberrant mean here? Is it necessary?

Well it means that sometimes you can accidentally get an infection even though it evolved to infect something else. I can remove it since it still gets the idea across. Done.

but the life cycle of any thorny-headed worm, or acanthocephalan, unfolds in three distinct stages. --> I think if we say "any", we imply that we know the life cycle of all thorny-headed worms. Instead, can we say "in general".

Done

At this stage, which for H. niekerki measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width, it burrows into the host's intestinal wall and continues to grow --> which for is weird, as it seems "stage" is the antecedent. During which?

I changed it to when, which seems to flow better, does that make sense?

I've made some minor edits directly to the article.

Thank you!

I would split the first paragraph of Hosts, as it's quite long.

Done.

Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus remain unidentified, it is generally accepted that, for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs, insects serve as the primary intermediaries This sentence doesn't flow that well, consider changing it to: Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus are unidentified, it is generally accepted that insects serve as the primary intermediaries for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs.

Done, that is much better wording.

Source formatting is not quite consistent: first names are sometimes written full-out, sometimes Vancouver Style, and sometimes abbreviated with a full stop. Please choose a consistent style. First read done, might add some more comments later. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found one that was inconsistent, but all journals use the same citation template, so not sure what else is in error. Found first name error, but could not find full stop error.
Thank you so much —Femke 🐦! What an excellent review. I've addressed all comments, but a few require your response. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one other possibility for simplifying the lead is to omit US-specific units. Per MOS:CONVERSION, unless there is a good reason to add, they can be omitted in scientific articles. From what I understand, even some in the US use mm in daily life for small sizes like this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, removed. I think I addressed all your new points.Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue with the first paragraph. It's better than it was, but still has room for improvement.

The first sentence still contains both the word monotypic and containing a single species. Okay if you disagree, but I think it's redundant and an easy opportunity to remove the word monotypic

I agree completely, this technical term belongs in the taxonomy section not the lead. Removed. Mattximus (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its body consists of a tubular feeding and sucking organ called the proboscis which is covered with hooks and a short, wide trunk. --> I would start with the trunk here, as the next sentence is about these hooks again.

Done.

There are 40 to 45 of these hooks arranged in rings that are not radially symmetrical which surround the proboscis, with seven large anterior hooks. --> put the "surround the proboscis" next to the word rings "arranged in rings surrounding the proboscis". You could say. "There are 40 to 45 of these hooks arranged in rings surrounding the probiscus. They are not radially symmetrical. Long sentence about sizes of the hooks as a function of distance from trunk." Overall, ensure that you vary sentence length, and include short sentences as well. Also keep ideas together as much as possible. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to reword as you requested. I think it's much better, but maybe I made some grammar error I can't figure out on the last sentence of the first paragraph? Other than this part, I believe I've completed the next batch of questions! Thank you —Femke 🐦! Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks better now! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"formally described in 1990 by Mary E. Spencer Jones, curator at the British Museum". Describing it as the British Museum is odd. It is true that it was formally called the British Museum (Natural History) until 1992, even though it had been separated from the BM since 1963, but it has long been generally (and now formally) known as the Natural History Museum. I think you need to either use the common name or the full formal name as of 1990.

I linked it to Natural History Museum, London, as there are many natural history museums, would this work?

"sent from south-east Africa". I think "sent from South Africa" would be clearer.

Done

"these glands produce a substance used in the reproductive process". Is there no information about this substance?

Nothing for this species, but for acanthocephalans in general it's also not much: "a protein with molecular weight of 23 kDa; in fresh glands it is white in colour", not sure this adds anything though.

"Much of the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section appears to belong in the Description section as some comments are purely descriptive rather than explaining why the species is morphologically distinct.

I see what you mean, but many sources put this in the taxonomy section as it's kinda like a dichotomous key for classification purposes. The taxonomy is defined by this key, as there has been no phylogenetic analysis.

"without completing their devoplemented rendering them smaller than normal". Typo?

Oops, nice catch!

"into the copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)" "into its copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)"? (I assumed that it was the female's until I read on.)

yes that is much more clear. Done.

"found in South-East Africa in the Nqadu Forest, Transkei, South Africa". South-East Africa should not be capitalised and is superfluous. I would delete.

Removed all 3 instances of "south-east" and just kept it South Africa.

"the life cycle of thorny-headed worm" "the thorny-headed worm" or "thorny-headed worms".

Fixed this and made the acanthocephalan -> acanthocephala to match the plural.

Is it known whether the worm harms its host?

Unknown. Most certainly yes, but there exists no source to back up my claim.

A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent review! I believe I've either completed or addressed all your comments above. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

Fixed

Is there no image of the worm to use in the lead? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there is not. There is a line sketch but it remains copywrited and behind a paywall. It is possible none actually exist as the last paper on this species was over 30 years ago. Mattximus (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

Mattximus seems to be taking a Wikibreak. Which is fine, except this article is getting close to timing out for lack of responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry was on vacation. Was hoping to pass before I left, but only had 2 supports. Am back at it and will be able to complete any missing tasks today and tomorrow. Mattximus (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually managed to finish up all the comments already! I await any further responses. Mattximus (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild. it's been a week with no movement and there are three supports, are more needed? If so I can canvass again to see if anyone is interested. Thanks! Mattximus (talk)

I have requested a source review. While we are waiting for that let's see whether further general comments also turn up. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]