Talk:Plasmodium knowlesi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SpicyMilkBoy (talk · contribs) 10:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC) g

I'll take this one. My initial impression of the article is that it's informative, clearly written, and referenced to appropriate sources - overall, a good candidate for GA. This is my first GA review, so I'm going to take it slowly - I'll begin with prose, images, and MOS compliance, and then evaluate the sourcing, completeness, and accuracy. I work in a hematology lab and occasionally have to diagnose malaria from blood smears, so I have a passing familiarity with the parasite and the disease it causes, although I'll have to do some reading to get up to speed with the taxonomy bits. :) I noticed a few minor prose issues on a quick scan of the article. Because this is my first review, I'd rather list the issues here than do the corrections myself, so that you can comment on them first - are you alright with that? Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on the review! Feel free to correct minor stuff like you did with the captions; I certainly won't be offended. If you'd prefer to list them instead, that's perfectly fine with me as well. Let me know if you need any of the sources or if there's anything I can do to help. Happy reading/editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria
Image review:
 * Pass
 * File:Plasmodium_knowlesi_smears_IDC.png - Listed as CC-BY-4.0, which checks out; it was originally published in a Biomed Central journal and is therefore under the BMC license agreement. Yes check.svg Y
 * File:P knowlesi smears.png - Public domain, originally published by the CDC. Yes check.svg Y
 * File:Robert Knowles. Photograph by Edna Lorenz, Calcutta. Wellcome V0027741.jpg Released under CC-BY-4.0 by Wellcome Trust. Yes check.svg Y

The article is well illustrated. The images are high quality, informative, and properly formatted. Captions are appropriate - I removed periods from the ones that were sentence fragments, per MOS:CAPTION. You may want to scale File:P_knowlesi_smears.png up so that more detail is visible, but that's just my personal preference, not a GA criterion.

There's a nice diagram of the Plasmodium life cycle on Commons. Do you think that would be suitable to include in the appropriate section?
 * ✅ I added it to the life cycle section. It's a large image and I didn't want it to cover the whole page, so I just added it as a thumb and readers can click-to-expand if they're interested... Ajpolino (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Stability: Article is stable; no recent edit wars or vandalism. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Focus: Article stays on topic and does not go into excessive detail. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Copyvio: No copyvio detected using Earwig. One source shows 53% confidence, but it's clearly a case of reverse copying, as the text was in the article prior to the October 2019 post. One sentence is identical to another source - Work with archival samples has shown that infection with this parasite has occurred in Malaysia at least since the 1990s. - but that turned out to be reverse copying as well; that sentence has been in the article since at least 2016. I didn't expect scientific journals to be copying and pasting from Wikipedia! Very naughty. I'll do a more thorough look for close paraphrasing when I do the source review. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not reviewing this article generally, but I would like to share an experimental Wikipedia tool from my team and show how I used it. See this Scholia profile of academic literature on this topic. In particular, look at the section called "topics", which seeks to identify what co-occurring topics come up in literature when people write about P. knowlesi. This tool finds that "antimalarial", zoonosis, and Malaysia and Thailand are terms which frequently appear with this one, in the data from Wikidata which the tool reports. The only change that I made with this information is to add a link to "Antimalarial medication", which somehow was otherwise absent from this article despite being named several times without a wikilink. This article does not link to "zoonosis", but I think it does enough to describe the concept appropriately without a link. Sometimes it can be hard to know what countries to mention with health articles but Malaysia is already here. I skipped mentioning Thailand just because I am not sure if the weight of the research merits it. This is what I have, thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Blueraspberry. I wasn't aware of Scholia, but I'll keep it in mind as I work on other articles (also thanks for the wikilink! An oversight on my part). Ajpolino (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Source review done, no copyvios seen. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the detective work. Mimicry is, as always, the sincerest form of flattery; I'm glad they like what we've got here ;) Ajpolino (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality: Article is neutral: no obvious NPOV issues or weasel words. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference section: Reference section is appropriately formatted. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Broad coverage: There are some areas that I think could be discussed in more depth (see below), but when comparing the article to, for example, review papers on the subject, the coverage seems appropriate for a general encyclopedia article.

Sourcing: Article is referenced to appropriate and reliable sources (medical journals and textbooks). No original research is present. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Query

Prose: Overall, the prose is clear and flows well. I think the article would be easily understandable to people unfamiliar with the subject matter, which is ideal for an encyclopedia entry. :) There are a few typos and MOS issues, and some other nitpicky things that I picked up on while reading. My suggestions are below; I've separated the more important issues from the more nitpicky and subjective things. I am by no means a professional copyeditor, so feel free to change or question any of my suggestions...

Typos and MOS issues:
 * replicate over 5 to 6 days -> five to six days per MOS:NUM✅
 * developing over approximately 48h -> 48 hours✅
 * The zygotes matures -> the zygote matures✅
 * even when they're simultaneously infected -> even when they are✅
 * Symptoms typically begin approximately 11 days after an infected mosquito has bitten a person and the parasites... -> ...has bitten a person, and the parasites...✅
 * between 10 – 12 days after infection -> between 10 to 12 days per MOS:ENTO ✅
 * abodminal pain, diarrhera -> abdominal pain, diarrhea✅
 * but can occur is particularly severe cases -> but can occur in✅
 * people with Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency -> people with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency✅
 * in 1931, the parasite, in 1932 Das Gupta - Sometimes "in [year]" is followed by a comma, and sometimes it isn't. This should be made consistent. ✅ (went with the comma)
 * In 1932 Das Gupta, along with his supervisor Robert Knowles described the morphology -> In 1932 Das Gupta, along with his supervisor Robert Knowles, described the morphology - missing comma✅ (well, changed it to "In 1932, Das Gupta and his supervisor..." I assume that still addresses your concern)
 * While, Cyril Garnham had suggested -> While Cyril Garnham had suggested - extraneous comma

Nitpicks:
 * The natural primate host of P. knowlesi is the long-tailed macaque; however mosquitoes -> ...macaque, but mosquitoes flows better Thinking about this. I lightly prefer the "however" version because I like the pause there. Let me look again with fresh eyes tomorrow and see if I'm just clinging to my own poor prose.
 * P. knowlesi malaria is an emerging disease first recognized in humans in 1965 but increasingly recognized as a human health burden in the 21st century. - repetition of "recognized", suggest something like ... first discovered in humans in 1965 but increasingly recognized as a human health burden in the 21st century.✅
 * P. knowlesi has also long been used in medical research. - I don't think "also" is necessary here
 * Later, it became popular as a tool for studying parasite biology as well as vaccine and drug development. - Syntax is ambiguous: became popular as a tool for studying... vaccine and drug development? Could be rephrased to something like ...became popular as a tool for studying parasite biology and was used in vaccine and drug development. The first sentence of the "Research" section has the same issue. ✅? I made a change to the first sentence of the research sentence. Is it any clearer now?
 * ...and then the schizont. - Not sure "then" is necessary
 * This contains approximately 5200 protein-coding genes -> It contains flows better✅
 * ....differentiating it from other Plasmodium species infection; however due to the relatively slow and expensive nature of PCR, this is not available in many endemic areas -> ...reliable method for detecting P. knowlesi and differentiating it from other Plasmodium species infection. However, due to the relatively slow and expensive nature of PCR...✅
 * Since P. knowlesi infection of humans has been recognized for a short time, relatively few studies have been done on P. knowlesi sensitivity to various antimalarial drugs. However, in studies that have been done... "Studies that have been done" is vague. It can probably just be removed, since the preceding sentence already says that few studies have been done. Also, the preceding sentence should probably be qualified with the date, per MOS:RELTIME - in the future, more studies will be done.✅? "As of YEAR,...." constructs leave a bad taste in my mouth (just a personal preference), so I trimmed it to just "Additionally, combinations of... have all been found to be effective..."
 * Having read the source this is cited to, I would recommend rephrasing to something like However, in observational studies and drug trials, to emphasize that the studies being referred to are primary research. ✅ Rephrased as "Additionally, early drug trails have suggested... could be effective treatments..."


 * P. knowlesi is the most common cause of malaria in Malaysia. However, cases of P. knowlesi malaria have been reported in most countries of Southeast Asia... I don't think "however" should be used here. The fact that it is the most common cause in Malaysia doesn't contradict the fact that it is found in other Southeast Asian countries. It may be more appropriate to say something like P. knowlesi is the most common cause of malaria in Malaysia, and cases of P. knowlesi malaria have been reported in most countries of Southeast Asia.✅
 * George R. Pile reported using P. knowlesi infection to treat general paralysis - I think general paralysis should be linked to general paralysis of the insane - the term is a bit confusing for people who aren't familiar with it.✅ Excellent find! I didn't know that article existed.
 * the tractability of P. knowlesi as a research system - "tractability" strikes me as a strange word choice, although I can't think of anything better at the moment. I changed the wording of that sentence quite a bit to "Through the 1970s and 1970s, scientific resaerch groups used P. knowlesi as a research model..." Let me know if you'd like me to change it to something else.
 * Thanks for all your work. All of the edits look good. Re. "but" vs. "however" - to be honest, that's just my personal preference, and if you prefer it the other way, I don't mind. :) If the "however" phrasing is kept, I believe it has to be followed by a comma, though. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Broad coverage:
 * I plan to evaluate the coverage in more depth later. However, two things jumped out at me while reading through the article. The first is that it doesn't really describe the microscopic morphology of the parasite. The reader is told that it's hard to differentiate from other species microscopically, but not why that is. A full description of each life stage is not necessary, but it would be helpful to describe the defining features that distinguish it from other species, and the features that can cause confusion. You should be able to find this information in a hematology or parasitology textbook - the CDC website has some good resources for this as well. Let me know if you have trouble sourcing this as I have a decent idea of where to look.
 * Good idea; definitely an oversight. I've taken a crack at adding a few sentences of morphological description using the CDC's website. If you think more detail is merited, let me know and I'm sure I can dig up a textbook with more on the finer points of differentiating species. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The level of detail looks good to me. Thanks for adding that. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The second is that the cell biology section only discusses the parasite's genome. There's no mention of the mechanisms the parasite uses to attach to and invade red blood cells, or its cellular structure. I think Plasmodium_falciparum is a good example of the sort of information that should be included in that section (although the writing style in that article is a bit too technical IMO).
 * Having read through most of the sources in the article, I'm striking this, as the impression I got is that not much is known about the parasite's cell biology at this time. However, I suggest renaming the "Cell biology" section to "Genome" to better reflect its contents.
 * I had named that section "Cell biology" at the outset of re-organizing this article with the hope that there would be more information out there. Let me take another look and see if I can find something. At the very least, I could point readers towards Plasmodium (where I've given an overview of the cell biology common to the genus) while noting that the organelles, etc. that are noticeable in P. knowlesi are the same as the rest of the genus... Thinking about it... Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, a basic description of Plasmodium cell biology might be helpful if nothing more specific can be found. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I added a bit more to the cell biology section, mostly hitting the highlights from Plasmodium. Very sadly, I can't find much further discussion of the cell biology of P. knowlesi itself, so it may have to wait for now. I could add a link to the section for a "Further information: Plasmodium cell biology " link. Idk, do you think that would be helpful, or visual clutter? Ajpolino (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it would be helpful, although it's not really necessary, so if you think it would clutter the page, feel free to leave it out. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A minor issue: hyperparasitemia is a redlink, so there should be a brief explanation of the term in the article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm. I don't think it's a discussion I want to get into here since the clinical definition of "hyperparasitemia" depends on whether you're in an endemic region or not. For now, I've redirected hyperparasitemia to parasitemia, and I'll hopefully get a chance to clean up that stub soon. I changed the text to get the gist across to the non-clinicians with "parasites replicate to very high levels in the blood...". Ajpolino (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't go into much detail about laboratory findings associated with the disease. From, I think Thrombocytopenia is the most frequently reported blood abnormality and appears to be almost universal in knowlesi malaria infections and Unlike falciparum malaria, severe anemia is not a commonly reported feature at the time of presentation for adults with knowlesi malaria. is worth mentioning. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Added a note about thrombocytopenia ("Laboratory tests of infected people nearly always show low blood plateletes, although this rarely leads to bleeding problems") and a very short note on anemia ("Unlike P. falciparum malaria, severe P. knowlesi malaria rarely causes coma or severe anemia").

Courtesy ping. I'd like to get your feedback on these suggestions before I move on to the next part of the review. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the radio silence. Busy times over here, so I may not be able to get back to this until the end of the week. Thank you for taking a thorough look through the article! Sorry for the delay! Ajpolino (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem - there's no rush. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it alright if I continue with the review today? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. Sorry again for being slow to respond. I anticipate things will settle down on my end around the end of this week (though I also thought that last week, and here we are again...). Feel free to pile on the criticism/commentary while I'm away. I can get to it soon. Thanks again for taking a fine-toothed comb to the article! I hope all is well on your end. Ajpolino (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - I'll try to finish the review over the next day or two, and I'll ping you when I'm done. Sorry if the volume of comments is a bit overwhelming... my editing style is very nitpicky (I made almost 600 edits to my own GA :p). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:
 * The article layout is compliant with MOS.
 * There are a few minor MOS issues in the prose, which I've listed above.
 * The lead is somewhat short, and doesn't contain much information on evolution or history. The discussion of P. knowlesi's role in human disease is also brief compared to the amount of information in the article. Per MOS:LEAD, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, so I think the lead could do with some expansion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beefed up lead a bit. Ajpolino (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing/Accuracy/Verifiability Thanks for all your work on the article today. I've checked off the lead section and I'll do a final check on the recently added sources to make sure everything is good - I expect it should be fine. I'm editing at work right now, so it might take me a few hours, but I'll try to have the review done by the end of the night. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor issue - the article says ...which migrates through the wall of the mosquito gut while the source says ...which migrates to the wall of the mosquito gut. "Through" carries a slightly different meaning, and the paraphrasing is also quite close to the source; could this be rephrased?
 * Good catch. Hmmmm I mean I think both are correct; my understanding is the ookinete moves to and then through the midgut wall. I'd like to leave "through" in there because it gives a better sense of what's happening. I can't find another source that discusses P. knowlesi in the mosquito (though I haven't exhausted all possible search options). Do you have access to this review? Figure 1 shows the way I'm imagining this working. The paper gives this life cycle for Plasmodium generally, but doesn't explicitly discuss P. knowlesi. I could cite that as well? It is a nice paper for anyone interested in mosquito infection... Idk, what do you think? Ajpolino (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do have access to that paper, and having read it I think it would be fine to keep the current phrasing. Thanks for clarifying that. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned about a source from 1971 being used to support biomedical information in the "Life cycle" section. I don't think it's always necessary to stick to WP:MEDRS's 5 year rule, especially for basic information like this that's unlikely to change very much, but 50 years makes my eyebrow raise a bit. Is there a reason why this particular source is being used? Is it possible to supplement this with a more recent source?
 * Oh man, it's a real classic, and you'll often see folks re-print the drawings from it... But I see what you mean. The Collins 2012 article reprints the figure from that book and uses it to discuss the life cycle. I've added the Collins 2012 cite after each of the old book citations, just to show that the 50-year-old lifecycle description is still accepted by the field. Will that suffice? Ajpolino (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think adding the 2012 citation solves the issue. I assumed it was a well known reference work, but thought it would be helpful to add a more recent source to verify that it's still valid for people who aren't so familiar with the literature. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The taxobox says the species was named by Sinton and Mulligan in 1933, while the article (and source) say it was named in 1932.
 * I think that was just a typo. Good catch.
 * The lead says The natural primate host of P. knowlesi is the long-tailed macaque. I don't see this explicitly stated and sourced in the body of the article, and some sources say that it is not the only natural host: this source says The parasite’s natural reservoir hosts are the long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis), pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina), and the banded-leaf monkey (Presbytis melalophos), while this source says The natural hosts of P. knowlesi that were initially identified were long-tailed (M. fascicularis) and pig-tailed (Macaca nemestrina) macaques from Singapore. This source says that The most frequent natural intermediate host of P. knowlesi is the kra, crab-eater or long-tailed macaque. Thoughts?
 * Not sure what I was thinking. Changed the lead to be vague and avoid a list, and changed the text to indicate the long-tailed macaque, pig-tailed macaque, and banded-leaf monkey. Ajpolino (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * P. knowlesi is most closely related to other Plasmodium species that infect non-human primates. I may be missing something here, but I don't see this in the source. Is this inferred from the diagram in figure 3? Or does the fact that P. knowlesi is derived from an ancestral parasite population that predates human settlement in Southeast Asia imply this? As I said, I'm not good with taxonomy...
 * Hmmmm... unfortunately I can't remember what I was thinking when I added that sentence. Figure 3 in that paper suggests the closest relative is P. coatneyi (also infects macaques) followed by a group of species that include P. vivax (humans, of course) and a variety of other non-human primate-infecters. I've currently rephrased it to "most closely related to P. vivax as well as other Plasmodium species that infect non-human primates." (cited to that same source), but if you think that's a stretch (it is a primary source after all), I'm happy to cut that part and just comment on it being more closely related to P. vivax, which is commented on frequently in the reviews. What do you think? Ajpolino (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me, thanks. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article says Approximately 10% of people infected with P. knowlesi develop severe malaria, but the source says at least 10% of patients report with severe malaria.
 * Best I can tell, that was just an oversight on my part. Changed it to "At least".
 * From the article: Uncomplicated P. knowlesi malaria can resolve on its own, or can be treated with antimalarial drugs. Again, I might have missed something, but I don't see this stated in the cited source. The closest thing I can find is Although most cases of knowlesi malaria respond to treatment and resolve without complications, which seems to be saying that it resolves after treatment. There is a mention that Among the 12 blood-induced infections, the clinical manifestations were reported as “moderate to severe with attacks terminating spontaneously after 2 weeks.” but that's a summary of a primary study on 12 patients, which I don't think is strong enough evidence to state this in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Again, I'm not sure what I was thinking. Trimmed that part. I'm glad you caught that. Ajpolino (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Symptoms typically begin approximately 11 days after an infected mosquito has bitten a person and the parasites can be seen in the blood between 10 – 12 days after infection This sentence appears to be sourced to a case report. A secondary source should be used here, per WP:MEDRS. This was in the article before you edited it, so it's not your fault. :p
 * Whoops. I must've missed that one. I can't find the info in sources, so I've just trimmed it out. Ajpolino (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Role in human disease" section cites extensively. Dove Medical Press does not have a great reputation (see their article) and this journal is not MEDLINE indexed,  which makes it questionable from a WP:MEDRS standpoint. A lot of the content cited to this source is also contained in other, more reliable sources already used in the article and I think it would be better if those were cited instead. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I must've been Googling with my brain turned off. I've replaced all references to that paper with other references (and changed the wording to reflect what those references said accordingly). I removed the two-sentence section on Prevention, since there doesn't seem to be much written about it (though it is speculated on here). Ajpolino (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those crap journals are tricky. Some of them are indexed on Pubmed, so you have to be careful. I accidentally tried to use one in White blood cell differential but it was caught by the edit filter, thankfully. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fail

General comments

 * The name formatting in the references is inconsistent. I don't think this is actually a GA criterion, but you may want to stick with one format. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ✅ I think I got them all (I assume you mean the names of the authors are formatted inconsistently).
 * Blood meal links to an article about dry, inert powder made from blood, used as a high-nitrogen organic fertilizer and a high protein animal feed - I don't think that's the right target. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC) ✅ That's hilarious. Didn't notice that. Changed to link to Hematophagy.
 * The "History of discovery" section is not just about the discovery of the parasite. Should it be renamed to "History"? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC) ✅ Yep.

Post-review comments
, I've completed the review. Overall, this is a well-written and informative article that was a joy to review. :) There are a few prose and sourcing issues that will need to be addressed before giving this the GA stamp, and the lead should be expanded to give casual readers more information on the medical, historical, and evolutionary aspects of this parasite. These are relatively minor issues and the article should be good to go once these are dealt with. Thanks for all your work on this article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Prose issues fixed. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sourcing issues fixed, new sources and images verified. I have made some minor copyedits and tweaks - as always, feel free to change anything if you disagree with it. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am listing this as a Good Article. All of my concerns have been addressed. This is an informative article that covers all of the major aspects of this parasite's biology, history, and role in human health in an appropriate depth for a general encyclopedia article. The writing style is clear and concise and the article is referenced to WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Thank you for all of your work on this article - it was a pleasure working with you. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)