This review is transcluded from Talk:Australiformis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's very welcome to have a parasite article brought to GA. Most of my comments are very minor, but I think we do need something on the life cycle to be able to say we've covered "the main points". Over to you - please reply to each item below when you've actioned it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

• In the first sentence, please rearrange to avoid having 2 bluelinks "parasitize marsupials" side-by-side, per WP:SEAOFBLUE. There's another instance (3 bluelinks) at the end of the lead - that's actually more misleading, as it looks like the name of a strange condition, but it's just an assemblage of links.

• Fixed the first instance, however the last three assemblage of links is really needed to be placed together as it's three technical terms that are all present simultaneously. Not sure how to break those apart and still maintain the coherence of the condition. Any thoughts?

• It's certainly not ideal.

• Also there, better would be "a genus of acanthocephalans"; and I suggest you just provide one alternative name (in the parentheses) for that phylum.

• Added this wording, and merged alternative names into two possibilities for one name, does that work?

• "It contains a single species": why not say instead up front "Australiformis is a monotypic genus..."

• I added this, which I agree is better wording. I kept the name of the species which should be in the lead somewhere but I'm open to any suggestions on it's placement.

• Measurements: these seem misplaced in the lead, unless there is some single fact which is really distinctive and unusual about the species.

• Nothing remarkable. I included it as I thought the lead should be a summary of the sections below. Would you suggest removal?

• Probably, but I guess we can live with it.

• Infobox should list synonyms of Australiformis as in note "b" in the Taxonomy section.

• Done

Taxonomy[edit]

• Well, I guess there are many ways to cook eggs, but it's certainly a bit unusual to begin an article's body with "Although". Why not put the Description section first and the Taxonomy last?

• I would like to keep the order of subheadings consistent with the other 2 featured articles on parasitic worms, however I reworded this paragraph which I think will fix your concern above.

• Further, "Taxonomy" on its own makes little sense in a modern biology article. We basically always want the evolutionary context. Please include and cite a short "Phylogeny" section (it and Taxonomy can be grouped as "Evolution") with a small cladogram to indicate the closest groups to Australiformis. If you need help drawing the cladogram, just pass me the data you want to use and I'll draw it for you.

• Thanks for the offer! In my first two featured articles on these worms I was asked to do this, and keep the subheadings "Taxonomy" and "Description" in that order. I would like to keep the same format for the two featured articles on related worms. It was impossible to have a phylogeny section in the first one as there has been no phylogenetic research completed, but it was possible on the second one, which is related to this species, see below. This present article is similar to the first in that there is no phylogenetic research, so all assumptions made about it's position on the table below is inferential, and highly subject to change. I think to be most accurate we should stick with the format of the first featured article and leave out this tree until there is some phylogenetic research out there to confirm it's position.

• I just had a thought. I could add it below with a question mark indicating uncertainty? What do you think?

• This would be fine if a source is provided.

• On second thought, you are correct, this is an excellent addition. I've added it to the page and added appropriate sourcing. Mattximus (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "There is only one species, Australiformis semoni (von Linstow, 1898)[a][b], in this genus and is thus the type species.[8] " --- why not say something like "The genus is monotypic, the only species Australiformis semoni (von Linstow, 1898)[a][b], being necessarily the type species.[8]"

• Although I prefer my wording, I have deferred to your expertise and changed it as you suggested.

Description[edit]

• Something is very wrong with some of the figures in the table. The proboscis of the female is up to 800 mm long? And 320 mm wide? Seems a decimal point is missing.

• Fixed this, original source has some strange switching of units.

• Further, why do we need a table of figures like this anyway? I don't see anything like it in other parasite articles like, say, Porocephalida species, or Trematoda species. We normally just have a textual description, with one or two figures (as in Taenia solium§Description), so I'd say it was probably WP:UNDUE. I don't think we're in much danger of copyright violation for a table, but it does feel uncomfortable, so best without.

It does exist in Gigantorhynchus which is my last featured article on parasitic worms. Originally it was in the text but it just made no sense to see a wall of numbers that you can't compare. Tables like these are very common in the literature. However I do agree with those figures in the link you provided, that would be excellent to add to this article. I don't have the skills do make one myself, but I agree it would certainly be better than a table.

• I think the tables are undue, and should not be dominating any of the articles, I e. a mistake is being propagated by the otherstuffexists argument.

• The article would be much improved with a licensed photograph or drawing. I don't see much on the web apart from the drawing in Schmidt & Edmonds 1989; it'd be best if someone takes a lab photo for us really as nonfree use of a drawing is hard to justify, though perhaps redrawing some of it would be all right.

• Completely agree. I even put in the request for image in the talk page last month. No bites yet. Any thoughts on how to get this?

• Not easy. Best would be to contact a parasitologist, or to visit a museum and photograph a specimen.

Hosts[edit]

• The image caption should say "Hosts for Australiformis semoni".

• Ooops, nice catch. Fixed.

• "the type host, southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus), northern brown bandicoot, (Isoodon macrourus), long-nosed bandicoot (Perameles nasuta),..." --- does this mean that I. obesulus is the type host? If so you need to say something like "the type host, southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus), and related species such as northern brown bandicoot, ...", and say ", the type host" in the photo of that species.

• Both suggestions made.

• Same sea-of-blue text issue as in lead, please fix it here too, but it doesn't fit well in this section: suggest you move it to the new "Life cycle" section where discussion of disease can fit in more naturally.

Article structure[edit]

• The article is missing a section on (or even a mention of) "Distribution". [1] is from marsupials of Australia and New Guinea, i.e. the parasite's distribution is determined by that of its hosts. [9] states vaguely that parasitism by a range of groups (from ticks to fleas, mites, roundworms, protozoa as well as Australiformis) was common in the striped bandicoot, without giving any figures for Australiformis infection rate. Since parasites often have an aggregated distribution, I'd hazard a guess that a few Australiformis host individuals will be infected with many species of parasite, while many others are much healthier, but we're very limited on sources to cite here.

• I've added this section as per your suggestions. Is this what you were looking for? Or would a map be better?

• The article is missing a section on "Life Cycle", something that is usual for all animals but which is essential for parasites. This should be the parent of the Hosts section - if you look at Taenia solium for example, you'll see that we talk about the life cycle as a whole, and give details of each host (especially if there's more than one in the cycle: here in Australiformis it looks as if there's only one). So we need to structure the article something roughly like this:

1. Description 2. Life cycle 2.1 Definitive host 3. Evolution 3.1 Phylogeny 3.2 Taxonomy

Images[edit]

• All from Commons and appropriately licensed: I added PD-1923 tags over there for the two old book images.

References[edit]

• Spot checks are ok.

• refs [1] and [2] are the same, please combine them.

• Done.

• ref [3] the relevant pages are 471-472.

• Done.

• Thank you for this excellent review! I've been busy at work but I've made a few initial changes. I'll have to come back to the rest at a later date. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for your review, I made one quick addition, but the rest will have a few days due to work but I will try to get it all done next weekend. Mattximus (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've went over all your suggested and replied. They are all excellent, thank you. I think we may be at an impasse however as your requests to have separate sections relating to life cycle as I don't believe they are possible given the paucity of sources. You are correct, they are important, but as far as I can tell there are no sources or information not already included in this article. It may be possible to include general life cycle for related species in different families of acanthocephalans or acanthocephalans in general but that would be an assumption that the life cycle will be identical to this species with no record of it's life cycle. I will keep looking, but what are your thoughts given what little there is? Mattximus (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, it's a GA. There's no quid pro quo at GAN but if you'd care to pick an article from the list of course that would be great. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]