Talk:Paragonimus westermani

Animals Low‑importance

Paragonimus westermani is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Morphology section - plagiarism? Part of the Morphology section text reads "Cercaria (not shown)", yet there are no images in this section at all. It looks like this was copied verbatim from some source. Tom (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. It mentions "In tissue: Hemorrhagic holes in the visceral pleura (white arrows) and adult worms acquired from the holes (black arrows). Bump of the visceral pleura is the subpleural worm cyst (red arrow)" There's no picture at all. Plagiarized for sure, and sloppily to boot. 16:49, 20 Aug 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.10.56 (talk)

The section on the life cycle is poorly written, and the paragraphs are completely redundant. It's probably one of the more poorly-written sections I've seen on a pretty important parasite. Could someone please fix this? Thanks. Bobsagat (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]