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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 August 2023 [1].

---

Australiformis[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third featured article nomination for parasitic worms, which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This one appears to be missing critical sections (such as life cycle) but I believe I can claim close to comprehensiveness despite this due to the paucity of sources available. I've done my very best to gather all the information I could from google scholar articles (there is not much out there on these tiny parasitic worms). I had an excellent good article review by Chiswick Chap which reorganized and improved the article considerably. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

• Suggest adding an image of the actual subject

• Completely agree. I put in the request for image in the talk page quite some time ago but no bites yet. Any thoughts on how to get this?

• One option would be to request permission for an image from elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding a range map

• OK I did my best to create and add a range map, I believe I have correctly attributed it in wikicommons. Please let me know if this was what you were looking for. Mattximus (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but the image description should include a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, added to both image and wikicommons file source

• Suggest adding alt text

• Done

• File:Microperoryctes_longcaudata.jpg needs an author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The author appears to be an institute, an the publication in 1870. I'm not sure how to proceed in this case. Shall I remove the image? Mattximus (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment the image has a life+70 tag; if that can't be demonstrated, you'll need to swap that out for something else that represents its status in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We can certainly infer that the author has been dead for a century, I will just remove the image as I can't find an actual author name, thanks for the review Nikkimaria! Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

• Table is missing caption, row scopes, col scopes, row headers per MOS:DTAB

• Fixed all three

• Table font size should be no less than 85% per MOS:SMALLTEXT, MOS:SMALLFONT

• Done

Heartfox (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

• Why is this article not at genus level and not at species level ("Australiformis semoni")? I thought that, for monotypic taxa, we always choose the species level (correct me if I am mistaken); see for example the platypus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Another drive-by comment) Per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, it goes to the lowest rank but no lower than genus. So, a monotypic family would get redirected down to the genus, but a monotypic genus has its species redirected upward to the genus. The only time that's overridden is when there's a common name for the animal - which is the case for platypus, but not for Australiformis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Thanks for explaining. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

• A quite technical article. I wonder what could be done to make it a bit more digestible for a general reader … In the lead, what about providing a general sentence to get an idea how acanthocephalans look like in general, before pointing out the diagnostic character of this genus? Furthermore, an image of the worm would certainly help, and if it is only a hand-drawn sketch …

• Added "Their body consists of a proboscis armed with hooks which it uses to pierce and hold the gut wall of its host, and a long trunk.". I would love an image but I have been unable to locate one. I put a request for an image several months ago but no luck, all I can found is a copyrighted sketch from the original paper. Any ideas?

• The trunk of the female worm range from – should it be plural ("trunks")?

• Changed it to "worms" to correct the plural

• may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis – placing three wiki-links directly next to each other is not ideal according to MOS:SEAOFBLUE.

• Agree, but I don't know how to rephrase the sentence to make those three words (each of which is technical and requires a blue link) flow any better than right beside each other. Any thoughts?

• I would solve it by explaining what this string of terms means (which would reduce technical language, too): Like "… ulcerative granulomatous gastritis, a form of gastritis (stomach inflammation) characterised by ulcers and granuloma ([add explanation])." This way, you don't necessarily need any links in the term, but can add the links to the explanation that follows. (Note that my example is probably incorrect; it is just to give you an idea of what I would propose). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an elegant solution. I've switch the wording in the lead to "...may cause debilitating inflammation of the intestines (gastritis) with granulomatous ulcers." and the second instance to your suggestion: "may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis, a form of gastritis (inflammation of the intestines) characterised by ulcers and granuloma (an aggregation of macrophages that forms in response to chronic inflammation)". Does that wording work? Mattximus (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the taxonomy section, I would compare with some other featured animal FAs regarding the structure. These sections usually start with who described the species, and the taxonomic history in chronological order. After reading this section, I still don't know who described the species to start with.

  I have this information laid out quite nicely in note b, should it be moved to the body of the text?

• Yes, I think this information is central for that section and should not be in a footnote. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands each with a giant nucleus, a brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida. – This is too technical, and we can certainly be a bit better with explaining and wording. A bit of introduction on the general anatomy of this class of worms would be helpful. Furthermore, I find the wording a bit confusing; e.g. "A brain", does that mean they have more than one brain?

• Fixed the brain issue, and defined one of the stranger terms with a definition in brackets, but the sentence needs to be a list as it all relates to the reasoning for the taxonomic placing. The overview of the anatomy is in the section below. Would you prefer description comes before taxonomy?

• The host of marsupials is also unique to this genus. – I am not a native speaker of English, but "The host of marsupials" seems wrong: marsupials are the host of the worms, not the other way around. In other places in the article, I was confused about the grammar, too.

• Reworded. Should be good now.

• with the outer wall smooth lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers – is an "and" missing here?

• Added an "and" and reworded it to sound a bit better " At the base of the proboscis is a double-walled proboscis receptacle with a smooth outer wall lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers and a large space between the walls"

• I am not sure if the "large space between the walls" is lacking as well, or if it is the contrary. More interpunctation may help. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I do not thing there should be any additional punctuation, unless you want me to make it two sentences?

• The trunk is long and is very thin at the anterior end becoming thickest at the posterior end. – again, grammar.

• Removed the second "is", does that fix it?

I think that the "becoming thickest …" is not well-connected to the previous part of the sentence. Maybe something like this instead: "The trunk is long, very thin at the anterior end, and thickest at the posterior end." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• While in this case I think the original wording is better, I will use your wording here.

• The trunk of the female worm range from 95 millimetres to 197 millimetres – Information in the lead not repeated in the body text.

• Is this a requirement? I pulled this from the table in the description section as being the only measurement that doesn't cross over into trivial.

• Based on my understanding of MOS:LEAD, I think it is a requirement, yes. Also, if the information is so important to be included in the lead (which I think it is), then it naturally also should go into the main text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the presence in the table below not considered main text? I can repeat the information from the table in a body text but that defeats the purpose of having a table to reduce clutter of numbers.

• Wouldn't it be better (and more consistent with other articles) to start the description with something general, and the size?

• Began with "The worm consists of a proboscis covered in hooks, a proboscis receptacle, and a long trunk.", size is in table on the right, should I repeat some of the highlights here?

• I will add overall size here as well.

• The second membrane is very thin and the third membrane is thick. – That the third is thick was already mentioned.

• I believe the first and third membrane are both thick, so this would not be repetitious if this is what the source intended.

• The last paragraph of the description feels like a rather random assortment of facts without apparent structure.

• I added the concept of sexual dimorphism to the beginning of this paragraph to indicate that this paragraph will be about difference in anatomy of the sexes. Does that work?

• To conclude, I think this article still needs some significant work, especially concerning language, structure, and comprehensibility. But it is a short one, so this should all be doable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I still have concerns about the structure of the "Description" section. Other than these, I am happy with the changes!

• There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males. – I think this should be moved to directly after the second sentence of the "description" section, where the actual lengths are provided.

• It seems a bit odd to add that statement after listing the size differences, becoming redundant is it not? I rearranged the first two sentences to read as follows: "A. semoni consists of a proboscis covered in hooks, a proboscis receptacle, and a long trunk. There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males (up to approximately 20 cm in females and 8 cm in males)." Was this what you were looking for?

• The outer membrane is often indented and the posterior end which is usually covered in small dots on the outer surface with a knob on the inner surface. – I can't follow the grammar here, there seems to be some verb missing.

• Fixed! Thanks for the catch, I missed this earlier.

• Males also have eight oval cement glands – Why "also"? This is confusing. You were previously talking about eggs, and this is now the first information about males. "Also" implies that the previous sentence was about something that males have, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks for your excellent review Jens Lallensack! Did I address all your comments? Please let me know if I missed any or if there are any more. Mattximus (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thebiguglyalien[edit]

General:

• I suggest doing a comma check. I didn't look closely, but it seems like several sentences would benefit from a comma.

• Added two commas, looking for more.

• The article is inconsistent between Australiformis and A. semoni. Even though in practice they're the same thing, one should be used consistently when referring to the subject of the article.

• Fixed this throughout the article

Lead:

• "Their body consists of" should be "Its body consists of".

• Done

• Proboscis is linked twice in the lead but then not again until its fourth appearance in the body.

• It is now linked once in the lead and once in the first appearance in the body.

• "The proboscis is armed" – is "armed" the right word? This is in both the lead and the body.

• It actually is, it's the word used in the literature.

• "The trunk of the female worms range" – singular/plural between "the trunk" and "range". This sentence also runs on with two "and"s but no commas.

• Fixed by splitting into two sentences and fixing plural. Second sentence now mentions that there is pronounced sexual dimorphism in lengths.

• "Infestation by Australiformis may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis" – To whom? It's obvious from the body that it's marsupials, but the lead has less context, and "infection" without context is usually assumed to be infection of humans.

• Done

Taxonomy:

• "The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands each with a giant nucleus, a brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida." – This is a lot to take in. The way I would do this would be starting with info about its classification and then either simplify the reasoning or spread it out over a few sentences. But I'm not a biologist.

• I agree this is a lot. I changed it a bit, and added a definition for cement glands, but it is still a mouthful. The logic is that it's a list used to define it's taxonomy, so it technically works as one sentence. I can try to break it up if you think this needs to be done.

• Regarding the previous point, has no genetic testing been done because its classification is so obvious? The article is unclear about this.

• Not at all, genetic testing is rarely done on these creatures. In fact I don't trust the classification at all without it, but that is original content and I just follow the sources.

• "The host of marsupials is also unique to this genus" – this seems like a strange way to phrase this.

• Fixed

• "The genus is monotypic, the only species, Australiformis semoni (von Linstow, 1898), being necessarily the type species" – This sentence is too choppy.

• I had worded it differently, however a previous reviewer suggested this new wording.

• I was going to say that note b should just be prose, but I see that's mentioned above.

• Done

Description:

• "The worm consists of a proboscis covered in hooks" – Since this is the start of a new section, "Australiformis" might be preferred over "the worm".

• Done

• "The first three or four hooks" – Does it vary? If so, "three to four" might be better, because "three or four" suggests low confidence. If it's more complicated than that, then a general statement like this shouldn't be made.

• No more detail than was is posted is available, but made the change as you suggested.

• The article gets a bit bogged down by listing a bunch of lengths all in a row.

• Agree, I created the table on the right to summarize almost all of the lengths, but left in the hook lengths in paragraph form as another table would be too many tables, I'm absolutely open to suggestions for alternatives.

• "At the base of the proboscis is a double-walled proboscis receptacle with a smooth outer wall lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers and a large space between the walls." – First. this runs on a bit. It doesn't help that "proboscis" appears twice and "wall" appears three times. Second, what does "lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers" mean? And third, it's unclear whether "lacking" also applies to the large space between the walls.

• I see what you mean, I could not find better wording but I added some commas to make the subclause clearly apply to the first case on not the second (space between the walls), resolving one of your concerns.

• Would it be clear to someone with a novice understanding of worm anatomy why body parts are "piercing" each other? Because that sounds incredibly painful.

• I see what you mean, but this is actually the correct scientific term use in the source

• "Long and very thin" is imprecise. It should be a measurement, or it should be compared to something.

• Added measurements of length early in body of text. And "a few mm thick" to width where you noted. Specific measurements in table.

• The second paragraph of this section don't flow. It reads like a list of miscellaneous facts put into prose.

• They all relate to the morphology of the trunk.

• "The outer membrane is thick with the exception of the anterior end where it is thin and often indented and the posterior end which is usually covered in small dots on the outer surface with a knob on the inner surface." This runs on, and it's unclear what a knob is in this context.

• Split sentence into two shorter sentences. And knob is the only word used to describe this feature in the original text. Admittedly a strange choice of words.

Distribution:

• Good.

Hosts:

• The first sentence of this section is quite long. Maybe split it so there's one sentence about the host species and another about the infection method.

• Good suggestion, added a bit more detail on infection method.

• The parenthetical about accidental hosts could be removed if accidental host was linked and the page was created, even if it's just a redirect to Host (biology)#Types of hosts for now.

• Done

• What's the context for the accidental host? Was it an unlikely event that's incredible because it happened as a fluke? Or is this a normal thing for this sort of worm?

• Accidental hosts seem to be a common thing among parasitic worms, I think they were just found there and was not part of the reproductive cycle. I've worked on several worm pages and they all have them, though I am no worm expert.

• I question the need of a gallery, but I'll defer to the nominator's preference and the image reviewer's judgement.

• I see what you mean, but I like to include at least some host images as there is no image of the creature itself. Mattximus (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi everyone, I will be getting to all these recommendations next week once my vacation starts. They are excellent recommendations and I will try to implement all of them. Mattximus (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with each section except for "description", which is still bogged down and difficult to read. There's not enough room for a table of hook lengths, but I'm sure a more concise description could be workshopped. You might try condensing it down to something like "the first hook of each row is 40 and 56 μm long, the second is 50 to 60 μm, the third is 42 to 50 μm, and the fourth is 42 to 54 μm." This paragraph is also unclear whether the hooks or the spines are being measured, which should be fixed. The second paragraph of this section could also use some reworking. Right now, there's virtually no flow between most of the sentences. The most obvious case is "No pseudosegmentation is present." as its own sentence, even though it feels like something else is the subject here. If the information is available, then how these parts of the trunk connect and relate to each other would also make this much clearer, but if not, then this can be ignored. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to reword (maybe the last reviewer has a suggestion), but sadly the condensed version is no longer correct (as it is not 40 and 56um, but between those numbers). The hooks and spines is explained in the sentence before quite clearly, not sure if I should repeat twice in two sentences.I did fix the pseudosegmentation to make it part of the first related sentence. The last comment you made unfortunately is out of our control as I've scanned all literature on the subject and what is present here is what is available to cite. Thanks for the comment! Mattximus (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that was supposed to be "40 to 56 μm" like I wrote with the others. And the prose does specify which hooks are spines, but it's better to use consistent terminology if possible. Would it still be accurate to say "and the remaining hooks" instead of "and the remaining spines"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh got it, yes I can make that change as you suggested. And we cannot say remaining hooks because the remaining ones are called spines (they don't have a curved end), only the first ones are actual hooks. This is mentioned in the previous sentence. Thanks for your prompt reply! Mattximus (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All of my concerns have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Five weeks in and there is a wall of comments but with no declarations of support or opposition it feels more like a PR than a FAC. There still seems a way to go to achieve any consensus to promote; unless discussion moves sharply in that direction over the next two or three days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, unfortunately much of the blame is on me for being away for a few weeks in the middle of this nomination. Over the past few days I have been working on resolving all comments, I believe I've resolved most (but not all). I will try to complete remaining comments over the next few days. Mattximus (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. We will try to stretch things a little. Don't forget to ping each reviewer once you have addressed all of their comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I should have it all completed by Tuesday. Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A further two weeks in and still little sign of a consensus to promote forming. I note unaddressed reviewer comments six days old. Pinging some of the reviewers to date. @Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk, Dudley Miles, and Peter coxhead: Do any of you see yourselves supporting promotion for this article in the near future? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When all my issues are addressed, I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look, and except for one of my points I needed to follow up on, it looks good. If those minor comments I just added are addressed too, I can support. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, would it be possible to get Funk and Jens' comments addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also will support once my queries are dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it as quickly as possible, I've addressed most, but still working on the remaining comments. Mattximus (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed every single comment on here with a fix or a question. Thanks everyone for the excellent reviews! Please let me know if I missed anything or what I can do next in response to my questions. Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a few of my points don't have answers, yet, so it's hard for me to see if they have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're missing a source review, or did I miss it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

• Mattximus, Ping me for the third review when the above issues are fixed, so I don't thread on the same ground as the existing reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all the reviewers and your patience! I've completed or asked a question about all comments from Nikkimaria, Nikkimaria, Heartfox, Jens Lallensack, Thebiguglyalien. Please let me know if you have any more concerns or followups to my questions. To FunkMonk it is ready for your review. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll try to get to it today. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Australia is WP:duplinked, but I wonder whether it needs a wikilink at all, as this seems to be discouraged.

• Fixed, removed first link. Only place it's linked is in the distribution paragraph which makes sense to me.

• The distribution map should be moved into the taxobox, like in for example tiger.

• Done

• Make sure that all synonyms are also redirects, which doesn't seem to be the case yet.

• Done

• Link morphological, Moniliformis, Moniliformis, Acanthocephala, Promoniliformis, sexual dimorphism, and other such terms at first mention outside the intro,.

• Done, I think.

• The single species should also be listed in the taxobox. See for example dodo.

• Good idea, however I cannot use that format with the autotaxobox, any ideas how to get around this?

Probably something with the automatic taxobox, pinging Peter coxhead and Jts1882 in case they know. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did my edit do what you wanted? —  Jts1882 | talk  19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's there, but at for example dodo, it seems each part of the binomial and their authorities have a parameter, and the name is centred, whereas here it's left aligned and with no authority? Is it just a matter of adding in the same parameters, or does something have to be done with the hierarchy too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Any common names?

• None reported in the literature

• "The genus Australiformis Schmidt and Edmonds, 1989 was created for Moniliformis semoni as this species differed from other species in Moniliformis and the other genera of the family Moniliformidae" Unclear from this whether you mean the species was originally assigned to another genus, clarify in-text.

I see this is explained further down, but it's currently confusing, which speaks for arranging the text under taxonomy chronologically, it seems rather random now.

• "The history of the genus of A. semoni is complex" The latter "of" is unnecessary.

• Done. Reworded to say "taxonomic history" to make it read better as well.

• I think it would better to spell out the taxonomic history first in the taxonomy section, and only after that the very heavy morphological diagnosis which is a bit hard to begin an article with, and as this also makes better chronological sense.

Meaning that this part should be moved to last in the taxonomy section: "The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands (which are used to temporarily close the posterior end of the female after copulation) each with a giant nucleus, the brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida. No genetic testing has been conducted on this species to confirm this classification."

• OK I think I understood what you suggested and rearranged the whole section. Mattximus (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The parasitizing marsupials is also" Missing "of" to make this clearer.

• Done

• Any images in the old public domain sources that could be used?

• None whatsoever. The only image I found was a hand drawn sketch that was under copyright. I would love an image here but I have no idea where to find one, or if one even exists.

Have you been able to find any of the 19th century sources? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Unfortunately. I've tried all synonyms as well.

• State authors and date of the cladogram in-text.

• Done

• Why does the cladogram have two citations? If it's a combination of information from different sources, it's verging on WP:original synthesis.

• Each of the two independent references has the same tree, but each are missing one genus. I see what you mean with original synthesis, but in this case it's pretty cut and dry as they are additive and not interpretive at all. Is this ok? Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the footnote is necessary, most taxon articles should have such a footnote then.

• I see what you mean which is why I relegated it to a footnote, but when I first started working on wikiepdia pages for species I was very confused about this, and would have appreciated the footnote. I think for others like me, there is no harm in this explanatory footnote. But I agree it should not be in main text. Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This taxon should be bolded in the cladogram instead of being a selflink.

• Done

• Why does it have a question mark in the cladogram? I think this needs prose elaboration, on what grounds the cladogram is constructed, what its closest relatives are, why its placement is uncertain, etc. Are there conflicting trees and so on.

• Explained question mark and why the placement is uncertain, explained the two genes used in the cladogram construction, there are no conflicting trees (the two trees used here are in 100% agreement, so hopefully this means no synthesis). Closest relative can already be seen from the cladogram no? Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Juvenile worms were found in the accidental host brown antechinus (Antechinus stuartii)." What was accidental about it, it's a marsupial too?

• I had a definition here originally but another reviewer asked me to delete the definition and instead link to accidental host where it is explained. I added back the definition.

• The links in the measurement table are unnecessary (the terms are already linked in the adjacent prose), and there are a lot of duplinks in it anyway.

• Done

• Measurements should have conversion (to US units) templates.

• It seems strange that it is normal for scientific articles to convert to US units, would it be ok to do this only in the lead instead of the hundred other instances of measurements?

Personally I do it for all measurements. There is something about this at WP:Units. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your review is absolutely incredibly thorough and full of excellent suggestions, and I agree with every single comment you made, but this one is quite challenging. Is it possible to leave this article in SI units, nobody working with these creatures use anything but. Mattximus (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a good deal of technical terms mainly under description that could use some in-text explanation (could be in parenthesis).

• Added additional explanation in parentheses.

• How does it enter its host?

• There is nothing known for this species on how it enters, but for acanthocephala in general it's usually through eating an infested intermediary host. I can safely add the word "eaten" as the entry for this parasite, but cannot give any more details as they do not exist in the literature. Will add "eaten". Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: here is the life cycle of a relate species I can assume is pretty similar to the species in question, but that's just an assumption. Anything I can do with this?

  

There is no source that gives a general overview of the wider group that could be used for information that is common to them all? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an excellent book which has a chapter on general reproduction. I can add this soon. Mattximus (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK FunkMonk, I found a good book chapter describing the life cycle including the order to which the species involves and it does indeed have some aspects that are universal. I've summarized it as the first paragraph of the "hosts" section in the article. Was this what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if this paragraph is considered good, I can add it to my other two featured articles on closely related species Gigantorhynchus and Apororhynchus.

• "not attached distally to body wall" Missing "the" before body wall?

• Done

• "There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males." And what are the measurements for each? I see them in the table but overall length is significant enough to be mentioned in the article body.

• Done

• I'd expect the text about size dimorphism being at the beginning of the description section with the rest of the measurements, where you already mention the dimorphism in proboscis length.

• Done

• "each with single giant nucleus" Missing "a".

• Done

• Nothing more on Google Scholar, JSTOR, etc.?

• No, nothing I can find.

• "(thorny-headed or spiny-headed parasitic worms)" Give this explanation in the article body as well.

• Good suggestion, added to opening sentence of taxonomy.

• You could show an image of a relative (next to the cladogram perhaps) to give the reader some idea of what it may look like.

• The closest species with a picture on wikicommons would be this, what do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a bit close to see the overall shape, how about this?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution makes it quite hard to see, but the other image you suggested I add on the lifecycle has a drawing that is more clear of this exact species, would that work? Until a real photograph is made of course. Mattximus (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Made some replies above, there are also a few points I don't see answers to yet. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, FunkMonk: I made the changes a while ago but forgot to note them here, I think I've got everything completed now or at least responded to?

• The new text looks good, and pretty much what I think I and Dudley Miles below requested. There is an issue wit the following sentence, though: "stages beginning when an infective acanthor (development of an egg) that is released from the intestines of the definitive host and then ingested by an arthropod, the intermediate host." I think the "that" is a mistake? FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I now think it would make sense to use the life cycle image you showed above in that section, and to copy this text to the articles about related taxa this may also apply to.

• Done, will also apply to the other two featured articles on related species. Mattximus (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great with the added context. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• The lead (and the description) should give the overall length of the worm, and of the trunk of the males.

• Added the trunk length/width to males, however the overall length of the worm is virtually the same as the trunk length as the proboscis is only a fraction a millimeter long, so it would round to the same length. Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the overall length is virtually the same as the trunk should be spelled out for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to explain this, as the proboscis kinda goes in an out of the tip of the trunk so has no fixed length, and even when fully extended only represents a rounding error for length. Mattximus (talk)

• So how about "is...long, virtually all of which is the trunk"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Added your wording, thanks. Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The parasitizing marsupials is also a unique trait of this genus among Acanthocephala." "The parasitizing marsupials is"? This is ungrammatical.

• Done

• Why is there a question mark against Australiformis semoni in the diagram?

• All other species on this cladogram have been determined using phylogenetic analysis, the Australiformis semoni position is merely inferred based on morphology, so it's position is questionable. Is there a good place to explain this? As an attempt I added an explanatory sentence in the caption.

• Maybe add "Unlike the other species shown," for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That works, added your wording.

• "The proboscis is long and swollen at the anterior end and tapers rapidly to a narrow base" I do not understand this. The female has a truck up to 20 cm long and a proboscis 0.8 by 0.32 mm, so what does it mean to say that the anterior end is long? It also seems odd to describe 50 μm hooks as large.

• Indeed it is odd, I agree, but these are the exact words used by all references. I suppose it's all relative to other acanthocephalans? Mattximus (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a short article and the information on infestation is limited. You say that they use hooks to attach to the intestine, but how do they enter the host? They seem very large to enter as adults, and if as eggs you should say so and how they survive until adulthood? Is there any more information on the effect on the hosts? Is infestation commonly fatal and is it known what proportion of the hosts are infected. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I'm worried about making too many inferences as there is no published information on the life cycle in existence (as far as I can tell). I posted an image of the lifecycle above of a related species, so I can assume it's very similar, but it would just be an assumption. The safest thing to say is the word "eaten" is how it gets in, but even then I'm weary. I've added "eaten" as two reviewers recommended it. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be wary of writing "eaten" unless you are certain. After all, some parasitic worms enter the skin through wounds. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a book chapter that describes the life cycle of the order which Australiformis belongs and I summarized it in the first chapter of the "hosts" section. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As good as you can do with the limited information. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific authorities[edit]

• I've corrected the genus and species authorities in the taxobox; the genus authority was showing for the species and the species lacked an authority.
• I've also corrected the authorities for the synonyms in the taxobox; under the ICZN, only the original namer is shown, in parentheses for transfers. A reference needs to be added for the synonyms; I used AFD to check them.
• There's inconsistency in the taxobox and in sources between using just "Linstow" and "von Linstow" in the authorities. Choose one for consistency and then use an appropriate source.

• Done, chose Linstow as it was the one used in the authority's original paper for this species. Mattximus (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

• Schmidt and Lenhaus et al: either both should have a publisher location or neither. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Added publisher location. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Since it seems that a source review is still needed, here it is:

• The genus Australiformis is named after Australia, the locality of the species. – I don't see where this statement is supported in any of the sources that follow after the sentence. You might think it is a "the earth is round" kind of statement that does not require a source to start with, but I am skeptical nonetheless. For example, the dinosaur Australovenator, also found in Australia, was not named after that country; instead the name derives from latin "australis" – "southern". That's why I like to see the source here.

• This is a very interesting case. When the etymology is obvious, it's almost always implied when it comes to acanthocephalan literature. I've done a few of these pages and only the names that are not obviously derived are cited. This means that there does not exist any reference stating it explicitly, it's just assumed. I'm very confident that no source exists stating it's named after Australia, as it's implicit. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally think we should remove this sentence, because it is not covered by a source, and because it is equally possible that it does not refer to Australia but to the Southern Hemisphere in general. But we could wait to see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there is no source it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article, much less an FA. I am surprised that this has not been picked up previously. I would assume that the name comes from southern, as in Australopithecus etc, but we should not be ORing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is problematic. The book I usually look at for specific bird names only states it means southern[3], and while we can assume it refers to the continent, this can't be stated when it's ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed sentence. I'm fairly certain it's named after australia, as that is the type location, but no source exists to confirm this. Mattximus (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source 1 should not be in title case (i.e., use normal non-capitalised words as you did for the other sources; "n. Gen., n. Comb." and "Marsupials" should not be capitalised).

• Done

• Sometimes, full author names are provided, sometimes the first name is abbreviated. This should be consistent.

• Is this always the case? Some authors go by their first initial and then second name spelled out and then last name. Some always go as abbreviations in their publications and some use their full name. In each case I reported the format in the literature. It would be OR to look up a name they chose not to put as the author would it not? In my own field you would never use V. S. Ramachandran's full name, or abbreviate Robert Sapolsky. Mattximus (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's usually not the choice of the authors, it's the choice of the journal they are publishing in; each has it's own style. Same for references; when you publish in a journal, the journal decides if the names in the references are to be abbreviated or not. In my own FACs, I was always required to keep this consistent, so I assume this rule is somewhere in the WP:MOS. As I do a source review, I am required to check the article for compliance with the WP:MOS, even if I personally don't really care about this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The easiest fix would be to simply abbreviate all the names, this is what I usually do, since it is not always possible to find the full name of every author. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• The first description of Linstow mentiones a figure plate; if the species is illustrated there, that figure could be included into this article because it would probably be in the public domain already.

• I've searched everywhere and can't find the figures it refers to... Mattximus (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• , brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa). – not a source comment, but this should include an "and" to conclude the ennumeration, right?

• Done, good catch!

• Everything else looks good; sources are of high quality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• All good now, I have no further comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.