Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gigantorhynchus/archive1

Gigantorhynchus

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is my second featured article nomination modeled after my first successful one Apororhynchus. This one isn't quite as tight as the last one, but it's the best I could do. If it not up to standard I'm happy to withdraw quickly. It is the second animal listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Gigantorhynchus). I've now done my very best to have gathered all the information I could from google scholar articles (there is not much out there on these tiny parasitic worms) and I believe I'm close to claiming comprehensiveness despite the relatively short descriptions for each species. I had an excellent good article review by Tylototriton which reorganized and improved the article considerably. Fun fact: I'm also the creator of this article 11 (!) years ago. Thanks!Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note I've made a significant change to the page, exploding the giant table into smaller tables justified to the right. I think it reads much better now, but I'm not sure about the format. Old version can be found here. Mattximus (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I preferred the old table, but that's just my opinion. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not super attached either way, but the split tables is better for showing the male/female differences which are significant in this genus, and also way more mobile friendly. I left it there since I edit by phone sometimes and the split tables works better. Mattximus (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * Have you checked whether you can use File:Gigantorhynchus ortizi.jpg? It has a comment: "Note: The journal Revista Peruana de Biología is an open access journal publishes their content under the CC-by-4.0 licence"
 * Yes I found and uploaded that image, I wrote that note you are quoting, and I put it in the article. It was determined in the GA process however that it was CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 which is not acceptable. It was the only image I could find that I thought was free, but is apparently not. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "The intermediate host includes termites." Does this imply a larval stage? You do not describe the life cycle, how long they live, what size they are, what effect they have on their hosts or what their food is? Terms such as pseudo-segmentation should be linked or explained (and you are inconsistent whether the word in hyphenated. This article seems some way off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no information available on life cycle, how long they live, the effect on the host (though there is single note from one paper on the on the effect of the intermediate host, which was included in the species section, but I can move it to the host section), but the sizes for nearly all species are known and found in the species section. Specifically the larval state is called cystacanths and there is only one paper (which is already cited) that discusses them. There is no citation that explicitly states what their food is but it is nutrients from the intestine of their hosts. I've sourced every single article I was able to obtain on this species. Similar to Apororhynchus it is (as far as I can tell) comprehensive. I've fixed the pseudosegmentation problem. If there are any sources not included I'm very happy to include them. You mention that the article is way off FA, can you be more specific? Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is obviously unfortunate that so little information is available but I think you could make what you have into a summary in the lead which will be useful to the reader. "Intermediate" implies three stages but you say this is the larval stage, so is there an earlier one or is this a specialist use of the word intermediate? What is the significance of ellipsoid eggs? Are they the first stage before larvae? You say there is no information on the life cycle but you imply two or three stages and I think that what is known should be spelled out in the lead. My comment on not being ready for FA was partly based on not realising how little information is available, but also on the failure to summarise what is known. There does seem to be enough to summarise the life cycle in the lead - 1. eggs, 2. larval stage in termites and effect on them, 3. mature stage living in intestines. (I suggest deleting baboons from lead as it seems dubious.) I can only find references to sizes of parts in the species section, not the whole animal. If the information is available, I suggest giving the range of sizes in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to add your suggestions, just a slight issue: this page is for the genus, and so I stuck to almost exclusively genus specific information. There is plenty of information on the life cycle of the phylum Acanthocephala in general, just not specific to this genus. For example, the egg-cystacanths-adult is common to acanthocephalans, so we can *assume* this is true for this genus. How much information do you want me to draw from the entire phylum of 1200 species, for repetition here? Should it be repeated in all hundred or so pages? I'm not argumentative if it sounds that way, I'm genuinely wondering, and I'm happy to add general information if that is what is best, but we cannot be sure it applies in this case. I will need a bit of time to work on other suggestions and list changes below. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep intermediate host is a specialized term used in the field of parasites, and I linked it to that specific meaning.
 * I'm a bit hesitant to add life cycle with the termites into the lead or the description section as this applies to only 1 of the 6 species. Other intermediate hosts are unknown (but likely ants, but that's just my guess).
 * The ellipsoid egg and the dimensions of them are important in identifying the species among the 6. I mention this in the description.
 * The size of all species are not know, but I've added this to the lead: "The largest specimen is a female G. ortizi with a length of over 240 mm and a width of 2.0 mm." Technically that's the largest so far reported, I can't report on smallest as there is no real way to determine if the worm is fully grown adult, or just a juvenile. Does this work for you?
 * As for sizes of parts, since it's a worm, the trunk is essentially it's size, plus the proboscis (which can retract sometimes). I made this a bit more clear in the description section by equating body with trunk. Just as an example, the trunk of the biggest one is 242mm and if it extends its proboscis it's 242.7mm, so not really significant.
 * The baboon host is a weird one, but it's a big part of the text so it should feature in the lead since it summarizes the text. Now I agree with you it's dubious, I've summarized *all* available information on this probably not real species, and although it appears an open and shut case, it is still officially a species, so we must keep it in until it's removed. Mattximus (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am now close to a support. I think the problem is that the article assumed some level of knowledge, and did not make much sense to someone like me who had never heard of Acanthocephala or Gigantorhynchus. I would personally prefer a bit more phylum information. Perhaps you could try to put yourself in the position of someone who looks up Gigantorhynchus because s/he sees the word but has little or no prior knowledge. It is of course a difficult balance how much to include but as the article is so short there is no danger of overloading it.
 * I suggest in the lead something like "Like all Acanthocephala, Gigantorhynchus has a three stage life cycle of egg, cystacanth and worm. In the cystacanth stage, Gigantorhynchus echinodiscus is a parasite in termites, but the host in other species is not known. The worm is a parasite in the intestines of ...."
 * I was about to put this in, but then wanted to check that this was true for all Acanthocephala. Unfortunately it is not, some have 5 stages! Apparently, only 25 out of the 1200+ species have known life cycles. Unfortunately none of them are 'Gigantorhynchus, any thoughts on what we should do? I do agree this would be great information, but it's only an assumption without any reference. It's *probably* the same 5 stages, but we do not know for sure. Mattximus (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So how about: "The full life cycle of Gigantorhynchus has not been established, but three stages are known: egg,..." Dudley Miles (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I ran into this problem reviewing another featured article, the conclusion was that it's hard to find a citation for a negative ("The full life cycle of Gigantorhynchus has not been established"), and there was no conclusion made. Not to sound ridiculous, but how do we know that we don't know? I believe wikipedia requires citations for all statements like this. I wonder if there is a way to cleverly word this so as to avoid any assumptions... I'll think about ways around this. Mattximus (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this wording in the lead: "The life cycle includes an egg stage found in host feces, a cystacanth (larval) stage in an intermediate host which includes termites, and an adult stage where cystacanths develop in the intestines of the host." Mattximus (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "such as termites" reads better and is the second "cystacanths" a typo? How about "an adult stage where worms live in the intestines of hosts such as..." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That wording is better, fixed. For the second part, I was trying to say that the cystacanths develop into adults in the intestines of the host. Maybe rewording it to mature makes more sense? Mattximus (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Using the convert template from mm to inches would be standard and useful. The size did not mean much to me until I converted and realised that 240 mm is over 9 inches. That is massive in the intestines of a small mammal and must have major effects, but of course if there is no source then you cannot comment.
 * Ended up converting this in the lead as another reviewer said the same thing.
 * I think the policy is to stick with SI unites for science articles, and I'm concerned that converting over 100 measurements into inches would be unreadable. BUT, I think I might have found something regarding the effects! There is a record of an infection in a zoo in Brazil that I can use as an example of infection. Thanks for pushing me on this, I will add it shortly. Mattximus (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think you are correct about conversion. In the list of invertebrate FAs, five out of the first six alphabetically use conversion. Could you convert just in the lead and infoboxes? can you advise on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just sampled a few featured articles at random. Dermotherium is only mm, no imperial units. Ferugliotherium uses a mix, with the paragraphs containing the conversion but the tables do not. At the very least it's not standardized, and if given the option I would not add imperial units to a scientific page. Let's see what others have to say about this.
 * You are inconsistent on rounding. E.g. "in the second circle measuring 0.140  by  0.09 mm". I think you need to decide on a how many decimal places to round to and stick to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this would constitute WP:OR, since I'm not just reporting the value but reporting the precision available as well. So 0.14mm is different than 0.140mm, which means I would be reducing the known accuracy, providing a misleading piece of information. I'm reporting the precision used in the source documents. Mattximus (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok added to both the lead and host section. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gigantorhynchus ortizi in the photo you could not use of does not look anything like 120 times longer than wide (240 to 2). Do you know the reason?
 * It appears that way doesn't it? But if you look at the bar, it seems accurate. The width should be 1/5th the bar and it appears so. And the length should be 24 times the bar, which it is in the ball park, it's just curled up a bit I think. Mattximus (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On my screen, it is 135 mm long and 7 thick. The 1 cm bar is 28 mm, which means the photo is 2.8 times full size, and the worm is 48 by 2.5 mm. You could increase the length to about 75 for the curling up, but nowhere near 240. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep I see what you mean. However it's likely that this image is not the longest one they ever found. The length ranges from 45mm to 242mm at the very most, so they just took a picture of smaller one. Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your own drawing of a Gigantorhynchus would be very helpful if you have any talent that way! Dudley Miles (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish! I scoured the internet for any image and the only one I found was the one you saw, but it was determined now to be the right CC.4.0 licence so I was pretty disappointed myself.

Still working, just wanted to say thanks for taking on a review of a very niche page. I will do my best to improve it as much as possible based on your recommendations and your help is appreciated. Mattximus (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I believe I've addressed all your concerns, please let me know if I missed one. Outstanding ones I could find:
 * Your approval of the new wording for the life cycle in the lead.
 * Waiting for another editor to weigh in on the conversion to imperial units.

Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One remaining point occurs to me. You mention that Gigantorhynchus is a worm in the first sentence and do not use the word thereafter. I assume that the worm is the mature stage and all the descriptions in the lead and of the separate species apply to the worm and not the cystacanth. I think this is not clear and you need to specify that the descriptions are of the mature worm stage. For example, it is not clear in "and an adult stage where cystacanths mature in the intestines of the host. This genus is characterized by a cylindrical proboscis".
 * Worm is not the mature stage, but "spiny-headed worm" is the common name for Acanthocephala, which the type of animal this is. I could link that whole section to Acanthocephala to avoid confusion. I agree with you on the latter being unclear. I'm actually not sure how to fix it, that doesn't sound silly: "and an adult stage where cystacanths mature in adults in the intestines of the host."? Mattximus (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you on conversion or on rounding, but neither point is a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about changing "and an adult stage where cystacanths mature in the intestines of the host. This genus is characterized by a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks" to "and an adult stage in the intestines of the host. Adult Gigantorhynchus have a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks". Dudley Miles (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for that wording, the cystacanths also have a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks. In fact, cystacanths just look like mini-adults. The big difference is that their reproductive structures are not yet developed, but you can't see that, it's on the inside. This is based off other related species, but I can assume this to be true for this genus (no source speaks of it). Mattximus (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So how about "Cystacanths and adults have a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks". BTW They must be more micro than mini to fit inside termites? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry this sentence is taking so many iterations, but did you want me to put a full stop after hooks and then start a new sentence? How would that look exactly? Currently it's: "This genus is characterized by a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks at the apex followed by numerous small hooks on the rest of the proboscis, a long body with pseudosegmentation, filiform lemnisci, and ellipsoid testes." Because the cystacanths do not have the testes, and I don't know about their pseudosegmentation and filiform lemnisci, we can't add your wording to the beginning of that entire sentence. Sorry I'm confused at this point. Mattximus (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is of course for you to decide, but I would suggest putting in the full stop, leave out the filiform lemnisci, which will only mean anything to experts, and decide what else you want to say. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One last suggestion:
 * "Cystacanths and adults have a cylindrical proboscis with a crown of robust hooks at the apex followed by numerous small hooks on the rest of the proboscis, and adults have ellipsoid testes. The genus is also characterized by a long body with pseudosegmentation and filiform lemnisci."
 * I will sign off with a support and leave you to decide. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood

 * I have been meaning to review this for some time.

Support from Jens Lallensack

 * and a possibly a baboon – is this one "a" too much?
 * Fixed, nice catch.


 * A pity there is not a single image of the animal in the article. Why not include this one? Maybe we could also have a simple sketch/line drawing showing the anatomical features, should not be too difficult.
 * Agree completely. The other reviewers suggested the same image. I found and uploaded that image you linked and I put it in the article. It was determined in the GA process however that it was CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 which is not acceptable. It was the only image I could find that I thought was free, but is apparently not. I could not even find a line image. Any thoughts? Lots of non-free images that are quite nice though:
 * In that case the image should be deleted from Commons. My thought was if we could draw a sketch of the animal (simple line drawing) ourselves, would be better than nothing? Another possibility is writing to authors of papers if they would like to spend an image. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The largest specimen is a female G. ortizi with a length of around 240 mm and a width of 2 mm. – The largest known specimen?
 * Doesn't the word specimen imply it is known? Can you have an unknown specimen?


 * Gigantorhynchus is considered a well-supported monophyletic group with the related Mediorhynchus genus in the Gigantorhynchidae family based on genetic analysis. – I suggest "Gigantorhynchus is considered a well-supported monophyletic group. Based on genetic evidence, it is placed within the family Gigantorhynchidae togehter with the related genus Mediorhynchus."
 * Reworded the lead to match the body. I think that should solve ambiguity?


 * You placed the etymology of the name in a footnote; this is important information that is usually given in the main text directly.
 * I did include the etymology is in the main text, but the translations are found in the notes. I believe this was the recommended approach for the similar featured article Apororhynchus.


 * confirms that this species forms a monophyletic group with the related Mediorhynchus – the lead states that the whole genus is monophyletic, this is contradicting.
 * Yes good catch. The original source for this is confusing. Maybe you can help make sense: "Molecular phylogenetic analyses recovered G. echinodiscus forming a well-supported monophyletic group with Mediorhynchus sp., which was congruent with morphological studies that allocate both genera within the family Gigantorhynchidae. ". It seems to me like the lead is incorrect in the wording, what do you think? Relates to previous comment as well


 * The type species is G. echinodiscus.[3] – Could be combined with the previous sentence to generate some reading flow (as both mention the same species). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They do, but I wonder if that's way too much for that complex sentence, and also it would necessitate the second reference to be in the middle of the sentence no?
 * Thank you for this excellent review of a very niche topic! I've addressed some but not all of the comments you've made, and seek your input on a few. Mattximus (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done addressing comments, waiting for your response to my replies, thanks again. Mattximus (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in the trunk lengths which are often two or more times longer in the female than the male.[2] – What is the difference between "trunk length" and simply "length"? Wouldn't "larger" or "longer" be simpler?
 * Agree, rephrased: "There is pronounced sexual dimorphism with the female often two or more times longer than the male."


 * For the above sentence, I can't find the part often two or more times longer in the female than the male covered in the source.
 * This can be found in every measurement box in the article that does have samples from both males and females. Trunk length + proboscis is the total length, and the proboscis is so small, you are right that we can generalize and just say "longer".


 * the giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), the southern tamandua (Tamandua tetradactyla) and the silky anteater Cyclopes didactylus – inconsistency in using brackets.
 * How did I miss that one? Nice catch! Fixed.


 * infesting the small intestine of the Common opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) in and Huanuco, Peru. – "and Huanuco", something missing here?
 * Nope you caught a typo introduced when I addressed another comment above. It's removed and fixed. Another excellent catch.


 * I still see many small issues, will continue review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks your small issues are great finds, I've addressed the ones so far, made all changes you suggested, no issues in this batch. Mattximus (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * G. pesteri was recorded from an unknown baboon species in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).[12][18] Gomes (2019) considers this species – It is not immediately clear if this species refers to the baboon species (it reads like it!) or to G. pesteri.
 * Clarified just to be sure, done.


 * The male genitals occupies – occupy?
 * You are correct, fixed.


 * involved in G. echinodiscus life cycle – needs an '? Or "involved in the life cycle of G. echinodiscus".
 * This is better, fixed to your wording.


 * That's it from me. A solid article on an interesting specialised topic. It leaves open quite some questions, but this seems to be the result of our poor scientific knowledge on these animals. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough review! You have made this niche article much better than it would have. I've addressed your 2nd and 3rd batch of comments completely, are all your concerns from the first batch addressed? Mattximus (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
I see an image review but no source review. Also for any further concerns? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber
Reading now.....
 *  which Hamann used in 1892 as a descriptor - this is Hamann's first mention so full name and maybe descriptor helpful here to introdice him. I can see Otto Hamann lacks an article in en.wiki - is he notable enough for one (off topic really)
 * Added first name, but there appears to be several Otto Hamanns so I'm not sure how to incorporate a descriptor, beyond maybe "biologist"? Mattximus (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * link 'Phylogenetic ', 'valid' ✅

Otherwise looks ok comprehensiveness and prosewise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review by Casliber

 * references formatted consistently
 * references are peer-reviewed, so reliable
 * Earwig's copyvio detector is clear.
 * FN 10 is used once and material faithful to source.
 * FN 1 is used 3 times and material faithful to source.
 * FN 18 is used 3 times and....species name is different...?
 * What an amazing catch! I've fixed this throughout the article, and confirmed the spelling with the other sources. Strange..!
 * Thanks for the source review! Mattximus (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)