Talk:Moniliformidae/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tylototriton (talk · contribs) 09:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this one, too! This is a placeholder, let's work through Gigantorhynchus first, as many comments will also apply here. Tylototriton (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Article is well written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Just a few suggestions on using tables and restructuring some sections, see below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Information is verifiable.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are from reliable scientific literature.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No orginal research identified.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations detected by copyvio detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage is good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused overall, but info for one species with main article should be condensed (see below).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit war or dispute identified in article history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are free and have appropriate licence tags.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	pending response

Lead

• "monophyletic despite being distributed globally" – There is no contradiction ("despite") in here. I'd suggest removing the "distributed globally" part and adding it elsewhere in the lead.

• I was trying to show how, despite them being found all over the planet, they all share a recent common ancestor. Is despite not the appropriate word? Y

It's just that there's no contradiction and nothing special in a widespread group having a common ancestor – e.g. grasses, birds, frogs are all found across the planet but are each monophyletic. I'd present this as two unrelated facts: The group is distributed globally. Genetic analysis suggests it is monophyletic (but do check whether all genera have be included in the analysis you cite). Tylototriton (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• "These worms primarily parasitize mammals" – it seems that at least one species infects birds? Perhaps also add that at least one species (Moniliformis moniliformis) can infect humans (perhaps give its name as there's an article on it).  Done

• How do you find this wording?

Looking good! Tylototriton (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Link cockroaches.  Done

Taxonomy and description

• Family and other higher ranks not in italics (check also later in article).  Done

• Caught two and fixed.

• "Genetic analysis has been conducted on four species:" – spell out genus name of the first species in the list.  Done
• "Based on these results, Moniliformidae has been determined to be monophyletic" – how can they show that the family is monophyletic if they only sample one genus?
• Phylogeny: unlink family and species, both in bold? "sp." is usually not in italics.  Done

• Found the link to family and removed, couldn't find link to species. Bolded the family. Removed italics.

• Maybe add a table here with the diagnostic characters of the genera?

Species

• As for Gigantorhynchus, I think a table with species measurements would be useful for each genus and make the text easier to read. But I acknowledge this takes a while to compile, and you may want to see what others think of the table idea at the Gigantorhynchus FA review?

• You are absolutely correct with your table suggestion, it's vastly better with the measurements in boxes. I'm going to adopt your suggestions for all these articles. I do like the large box along with other reviewers, however I found it does display well on mobile, but the small boxes are perfect, so I may stick with those? Y

I'm happy with the small boxes, too! Tylototriton (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Species – Australiformis semoni

• "parasitizes Australian and New Guinean marsupials including ..." – remove commas before parentheses in the species list following.  Done
• Type species: move that to the genus.  Done

Species – Moniliformis cestodiformis

• "European hedgehogs (Erinaceus) in West Africa" – this sounds a little strange, and the genus article doesn't have the common name "European hedgehog". What about "hedgehogs of the genus Erinaceus in West Africa"?  Done

Species – Moniliformis cestodiformis

• "were discovered while examining human coprolite specimens" – does the article say how old these coprolites were? Would give useful context.

Species – Moniliformis cryptosaudi

• "cryptic species with M. saudi being morphologically identical, apart from the metal content of the hooks" – Looking at M. saudi, I don't understand which one has metal in its hooks. What kind of metal anyway?  Done

Remark, phosphorus is not a metal – so maybe replace "metal content" with "calcium content"? Tylototriton (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Species – Moniliformis moniliformis

• Most of this section should be moved to the species article, and one short paragraph should be sufficient here.
• Periplaneta is a genus –> italics.  Done
• "Acanthocephaliasis" – moliniformiasis?  Done
• You could split the lifecycle information off as a global section "Lifecycle", while stating that it is only known for one species so far.

• Yes, this would be great in the host section.

Species – Moniliformis necromysi

• "well-supported monophyletic group" – did the authors include several populations? Otherwise it's a bit strange to speak of a "monophyletic group" for a single species.

Species – Moniliformis siciliensis

• "Brown rat", "Garden doormouse" – no capitals for these commons names as per WikiProject naming conventions. Check elsewhere in the article.  Done

• There were *many* but I think I caught them all.

Species – Promoniliformis ovocristatus

• "It is the type species" – Redundant, as there's only one species (which must be the type species).

Hosts

• I think distributing the images (or only some, I think not all are necessary) in the article instead, under the species sections, would make the text visally more appealing.

Notes

• Why not include these notes in the main text?

References

• Check that species names are in italics.  Done

• Found many and fixed, hope I caught them all.

Here's my review! Given the similar structure to Gigantorhynchus, some remarks are also similar. You might want to see what people say at the Gigantorhynchus review. Detailed article overall, great work, only a few thinks to resolve for passing. Tylototriton (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for this review. Gigantorhynchus, your previous review article, was just promoted to Featured Article, thanks in part to your excellent review. Based on your comments above and the comments from the featured article review, it will take me quite a while to make all the changes necessary. Are you opposed to keeping this review open for quite a while? Should I cancel it and try again later? What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Congrats for Gigantorhynchus! Happy to keep this review open, take your time. Tylototriton (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Tylototriton, Mattximus, where does this nomination stand? It's been over eight weeks since the last edits to the article, and while Mattximus has been editing more recently it has not been on this article. Perhaps it would be best to close the review for now, and when Mattximus ultimately has the time to address the issues in the review, a new nomination can be made. Tylototriton can always offer to take up the review of the new nomination when it's ready. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have much time for Wikipedia these days, and probably for the next two weeks. I'm happy with closing the review or keeping it open, as Mattximus prefers! Tylototriton (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes likewise I don't see myself getting back to this, I think it's best to close review. Thanks anyway, I did get the first nomination up to Featured Article thanks to Tylototriton's review so his efforts were not lost. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Tylototriton, Mattximus, just a courtesy notice that if there is no action by the end of this month, I'll be closing the review since that seems to be indicated by both your comments above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly closing this as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)