Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pachysentis/archive1

Pachysentis

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is my fourth featured article nomination for parasitic worms, which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This article has went through an excellent GA review by User:Mike Christie and a peer review by User:SilverTiger12. I've done by best to incorporate both user's suggestions and I've also added a bit more depth recently. I believe I've captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * Images in this version of the article are ok. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the removal of the images of the hosts due to the nature of the Pachysentis species. As parasites their entire existence is dependent on the hosts, and with this removal there are no images of the hosts. As it is a list of Pachysentis species, a gallery of hosts does not run afoul of WP:NOTGALLERY. However your suggestion of citations in figure captions can certainly be addressed if you would permit a revert of the gallery deletion. Mattximus (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Passerby comment. I hope that this debate doesn't occur at every single FAC with a gallery, but I'll just echo what I wrote in the somewhat contentious Featured article candidates/Inuit clothing/archive1 - galleries are not a problem, and I disagree with buidhe's belief that they violate the MOS.  The gallery in this specific article improves the article, and should be restored IMO.  SnowFire (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also think that the gallery makes a lot of sense here; please restore. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, I also agree that images of hosts for a parasite article are critical, and I have restored the deleted gallery. Mattximus (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The captions still fail WP:VER. If they were relevant, I would expect that information to be in the article already. I suspect that it's not in the article because the sources needed to source them would not be about the genus. Contrary to what the other commentators said, I am not opposed to all galleries, but all images in an article need to be of encyclopedic relevance and connected to the sourced article text. If the picture is relevant, I would expect that what is depicted in the picture is (at a minimum) mentioned in the article's prose. Otherwise it would seem that the subject of the picture is not important to understanding the article topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , as far as I can see the information is in the article -- in the "Species" section each species includes a list of the hosts found. I recall spotchecking some of these when I did the GA review.  I think that means the gallery is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case the gallery should be moved to where the information is mentioned. I was expecting the information on hosts to be in the "hosts" section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations on the good work that has been put here. As an occasional contributor to WikiProject:Medicine, I wonder if the question whether Pachysentis infects humans cannot be avoided. One's eye falls on the CDC image on the life cycle of the phylum Acanthocephala, with human as an occasional host; and the parasite is mentioned right at the beginning of the article as a pathogen to primates, which include humans. I have not been able to locate a human infection cited anywhere. But lists of acanthocephala that infect humans do not include Pachysentis. I leave to the consensus of the contributors to decide whether something like "Humans have not been reported as hosts of Pachysentis species" can be cited to a review article like this, which does not include it in a list of reported causes of acanthocephaliasis.NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on humans as hosts
 * I'm happy to add this sentence to the end of the "host" section: "There are no reported cases of any Pachysentis species infesting humans in the English language medical literature." and use the citation you provided. If you like this wording I can add this to the other featured acanthocephalan featured articles for consistency. Mattximus (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers. And you'd be welcome to add this further. This leaves a discrepancy between the text and the CDC image. Maybe also add the sentence to the image description? NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added the sentence, your reference, and also a note to the image. I will also repeat these facts for the other FA acanthocephalans, thanks for the suggestions!

Coordinator note
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I should be able to manage a review once Jens is done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am also ready to review, but I would also not want to tread the same ground as Jens, so am waiting for resolution of those issues. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, can I remind you of the FAC instruction "Nominators are expected ... to make efforts to address objections promptly." Jens posted their review two weeks ago and it is still to be fully addressed. While the coordinators are reluctant to archive a nomination which has reviewers queueing up, at five weeks old and with no signs of a consensus to support forming that prospect is hovering. If RL does not permit a speedier response - and goodness knows we have all been there - perhaps consider withdrawing the nomination without prejudice and resubmitting it when you are better able to deal with the demands of a FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I was sick for almost 3 weeks and could not work on it. I've been managing a few more edits in the past few days, I think I have addressed all above comments but only about half of Jens' comments. I will certainly need another week, but if that's not acceptable I can understand you closing this. Mattximus (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, while I sympathise with the ill health, I think it best if it be archived and then reopened once you are fully recovered. I am sure that those who have contributed here or offered to will be happy to pick up again if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Jens

 * Pachysentis is a genus in Acanthocephala (thorny-headed worms, also known as spiny-headed worms) that parasitize primates and carnivorans by attaching themselves to the intestines using their hook-covered proboscis. – This might be a bit too much/too long for the first sentence of the lead. Maybe make it two sentences? Done
 * with a short proboscis covered in hooks used to attach to the inner lining of the gastrointestinal tract of their hosts. – This is redundant, as it was already mentioned in the first sentence. Done
 * Virtually all of the length is the trunk with a short proboscis – So almost the entire length is trunk and proboscis? What about the rest? (Edit: I think you just need a comma behind "trunk" to get your intended meaning?) Done
 * Pachysentis species are distributed across Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas. – This information is so important that it could be mentioned much earlier, in the first or second sentence of the lead. Done
 * and confirms that this species forms an independent group – I am not sure what you want to say. If the species is not an independent group, it wouldn't be a species? Done
 * I'm also a bit confused but this is the wording used in the actual paper. I changed it so that it more closely resembles the paper's wording "supporting its independent status in the family Oligacanthorhynchidae". Does this work?
 * Yes, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Phylogenetic linked twice in two consecutive sentences. Done
 * and have placed it in the family Oligacanthorhynchidae – include "also", as it is the same family? Done
 * The type species for Pachysentis is P. canicola.[5][2] In 1972, Schmidt reclassified six species from the Prosthenorchis genus and one species from the Oncicola genus into the genus Pachysentis. – These are two isolated bits of information without context that should be elaborated on. Who described the type species and when, and based on what specimen collected where? In what family was the genus originally placed? Was Schmidt 1972 the last reclassification, i.e., did this result in the currently recognized 11 species?
 * I see what you are suggesting but I am not sure what to add. Do you think any of these points are worth adding?
 * Specimen originally collected by Von Olfers and Sello form a canis species in Brazil prior to publication in 1931.
 * Family was not changed, just the genus.
 * Schmidt was the last reclassification though a new species was discovered in 2019.
 * Yes, I would say so, at least the first of your points. This is standard information in biology articles. I would suggest a sentence like "The genus Pachysentis was first described by the Czech helminthologist Anton Meyer in 1931 based on a specimen collected by Von Olfers and Sello from a canis species in Brazil'' --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But he was describing several species at once? In any case, something like this with other appropriate information would be great, including the number of species he described and what the type species is (you mention this later, but the type species clearly belongs within the "taxonomy" section). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * replace "et al." with "and colleagues", which is much more accessible to the general reader. Done
 * Pachysentis look identical to the closely related Oncicola – We usually use singular when talking about genera (i.e., "looks"). Alternatively, you could write "Species of Pachysentis look …" Done
 * The rows may be regularly or irregularly alternating and straight or crooked. Hooks have tips with or without barbs – Is this variation specific for separate species, for separate body parts, or is it intraspecific variation? Add something like "Depending on the species," to make this clear. Done
 * The trunk is fairly wide relative to the length with the anterior half usually wider than the posterior half. – No idea what "fairly wide" means; as this could mean anything when writing about a worm, it should, I think, specified (something like "around twice as long as wide" or similar, maybe).
 * There are eight cement glands compactly arranged each with a single giant nucleus used to temporarily close the posterior end of the female after copulation – Can you link or explain "nucleus" here?
 * the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) in Texas, – Was this a captive maned wolf? If so, it should be mentioned I think.
 * It was also found infesting the western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) – But the lead says it only infests primates and carnivorans.
 * P. dollfusi was found infesting the intestines of the common brown lemur (Eulemur fulvus) in a Brazilian zoo but originally from the island of Madagascar.[16] It is thus unknown if the worm originates from Brazil or Madagascar. – Same problem should apply to the maned wolf in Texas, no?
 * arranged into six rows of four hooks each followed by six rows of four hooks each. – add "another"? Done
 * You provide the meaning of the name for all species except Pachysentis ehrenbergi?
 * This species is named after Angola, the country where it was first discovered. – In all other species entries, the etymology sentence is always the last, except here where it is second. Done
 * The species name is a form of the Latin for "procumbent" – "is from the Latin "procumbent"? Done
 * with different measurements. – This does not make much sense to me. It would be an unlikely coincidence if the measurements would be identical. Writing something like "; these specimens were significantly larger/smaller" would be more helpful.
 * lemnisci – should be linked and/or explained in-text, not only in the table
 * It is the only known parasite of the crab-eating racoon in Brazil. – It can't be the only one since the title of the paper that you cite here is "Oncicola luehei in a wild crab-eating raccoon (Procyon cancrivorus) from the Brazilian cerrado savanna".
 * P. rugosus has been found to infest the large intestine of Azaras's capuchin (Sapajus cay) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Again, I would say the information "Rio de Janeiro" is misleading at best, since the species does not occur there (zoo animal again, I assume).
 * P. septemserialis is considered by Gomes (2019) to have an uncertain taxonomic status due to differences between the paratypes morphological characteristics and the original description, the similarity in hosts – what does "similarity in hosts" mean, and why does it suggest an uncertain taxonomic status? I can't follow here.
 * whereas a collar was observed – observed where (the paratype?) by whom?
 * A second discrepancy from another paratype is the incorrect number of hooks;  – wrong wording, a "discrepancy" cannot be "incorrect".
 * The distribution of Pachysentis species is determined by that of its hosts. Pachysentis species have been found in North America (Texas), – see my comment above, this again does not make any sense when based on zoo species (the host is not distributed in Texas).
 * ingested by an arthropod, the intermediate host. The intermediate hosts of most Pachysentis species are not known. Contradicts a cystacanth (larval) stage in an intermediate host such as the Egyptian cobra
 * Please check if mesenteron links to the correct article; the article is human-only so this needs additional explanation.
 * The acanthor are passed – singular/plural
 * Pachysentis species exclusively parasitize primates and carnivorous mammals as their primary host – "carnivorous mammals" is not the same as "carnivorans" (which is stated in the lead)! Done
 * Pachysentis species are distributed in Africa and North, Central and South America. – Already mentioned. Done
 * I worry a bit about language quality. I fixed a lot of grammar issues myself, in addition to those mentioned above, but I think the article still needs a careful copy-edit. But I hope these comments help. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These are excellent comments, I've just started but I'm happy to go through all of them next week as I've become quite ill at the moment. Mattximus (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , as per the instructions at WP:FAC, please avoid using template markups like done as they are known to cause loading time issues with the page. FrB.TG (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do, will go through the remainder early next week. Mattximus (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

FM

 * I'll return with a proper review when the chunk above is resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At first glance there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:
 * Terms could be linked in image captions, such as Proboscis, lemur, and Acanthocephala.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)