Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heptamegacanthus/archive2

Heptamegacanthus

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is my second attempt at nominating this obscure worm. I believe I've made all changes requested in previous nomination, and peer review and captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance!Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me from which date you made the improvements based on the last FAC? Then I can compare with my notes from back then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure! I made a large number of edits on May 8th just before the FAC closed, but it was not enough to garner support. I then went through all comments and did some rewrites on June 4th to try and make sure every single comment was addressed. Is that the information you were looking for? Also thank you for taking the time to review such an obscure article. Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've compared my last comments with the current version, and a few points still stand out, listed below. I believe that's all, but it's a bit difficult to figure out after this time. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Two reviewers have suggested conversions for measurements, which has not been done.
 * I added this to the lead, but there are so many measurements in the body that it looked like a complete mess with double the measurements. I'm not sure that non-metric measurements are needed in a scientific article, apart from the lead which provides an overview. Is this critical to passing FA? It would make parts of the body almost unreadable.


 * There is still a good deal of duplinks. They can be highlighted with this script:
 * Done. Thanks for sharing that script, I'm going to use it from now on.


 * Anything on on how the type specimens were collected? From one or more moles?
 * Unfortunately not, I did my best to relay all information regarding the collection from the original document. It's also the only paper to mention the sampling.
 * That's all three comments worked on, thanks again for your review. Awaiting your reply. Mattximus (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - I won't hold it back for lack of measurement conversions, but if a third reviewer brings it up, it's probably time to add them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)