Talk:Apororhynchus

Copy edit notes
I was making a light copy edit of the article prior to its appearance for TFA, mostly tweaking comma placement. A couple notes: Let me know when you have a chance. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style recommends that commas be used for separation (generally to separate clauses, list items, or parenthetics) and should not be used for compound modifiers, which we generally try to conjoin rather than disjoin. This brings me to the following passage, which was brought up at the article's FAC review:
 * The proboscis is large, globular, with numerous deeply set spirally arranged rootless hooks usually not reaching the surface, or with none.
 * The commas around globular shouldn't be there, but it is a tricky passage and I was wondering if it might be rephrased for better clarity. In particular, I'm not sure what is meant by "or with none".  Is this meant to indicate that the proboscis may not be present, or that the hooks may not be present?
 * Agreed. Rewritten as follows: "The proboscis is large and globular with numerous deeply set spirally arranged rootless hooks usually not reaching the surface, or with no hooks."
 * to distinguish this genus among other acanthocephalans Should acanthocephalans be capitalized here?
 * Corrected.
 * The species name amphistomi derives from Should amphistomi be italicized? This is usually done when discussing a word (MOS:WORDSASWORDS).
 * Corrected.
 * A seventh species, Apororhynchus bivoluerus Das, 1950 Is it important to have "Das, 1950" in the text when that is in citation 10?  It looks like a mix of reference styles (which is discouraged per WP:CITESTYLE).
 * In this case, I would like to leave it, as "Apororhynchus bivoluerus Das, 1950" is almost it's official name as well as the citation. It's often written like that in the sources. However, I'm really not attached to it, and can easily delete it if you think otherwise.
 * Females are 2.13 mm long by 0.83 mm in maximum width and the proboscis is 0.36 mm long by 0.44 mm in maximum width. The male is smaller being 1.43 mm long by 0.53 mm in maximum width and the proboscis is 0.44 mm long by 0.74 mm in maximum width. Having "mm in" might look a little weird since "in" is the abbreviation for inches.  Maximum width could probably be assumed and could be replaced with "wide".  Also, if the length includes the proboscis perhaps "including the proboscis which is".  I also notice the section which followed gave figures as width by length, and some consistency would make comparison easier.
 * Agree this is worded weirdly, but does changing maximum width to wide, after giving a range, imply a min-max range instead of a range of the maximum widths?
 * Specimens were between 3.21 and 3.51 mm in total length, with a maximum width of 0.80 to 1.05 mm at middle and the eggs are around 0.07 mm long and 0.035 mm wide. Would it be better with agreement of the tenses "specimens were" and "eggs are"? (This had been changed during the FA review.)
 * Corrected in that sentence, however I did notice that there is a tense shift in the whole article if that matters?
 * Going through them now, thanks Reidgreg for the copy edit! All recommendations are great so far. Two queries above and all other changes made. Mattximus (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)