I am happy to review this article - it is quite long and I am quite new (very new) to this so hopefully there is no urgency.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would link entomologist; give an internal link to micropredator; link mutualism
Linked two; internal links are deprecated and we don't use them in biology articles.
In sentence starting ‘Parasites include … think it would be better to change the wording from animals to - worms such as hookworms, insects such as lice and mosquitoes; think fungi ought to follow on from mosquitoes and types only to refer to those affecting humans as the other ones do and would also avoid the second use of worm as in ringworm
Not sure I see your drift here. Article is not on human parasites (humans are just one host species). Ringworm isn't a worm but a fungus; and it's going into multiple levels of detail to distinguish animal groups, this is the lead and we're just saying there's a wide spread including not only animal kingdom but plants, fungi. Hope this is ok with you. I've reordered fungi, guess the rationale wd be the relatedness of animals and fungi.
The strategies ought to refer to particular strategies such as parasitic castration, and different modes of transmission, parasitoidism, and micropredation
The cited source calls these six things strategies.
Doesn't make it right in the reading on this page. On the page Parasitoid it states that the strategy used is parasitoidism same goes for the entry Parasitic castration...is the strategy. Also in the ref (12) given the term parasitic strategies is used.(more than once)
You mean you want nouns? Done.
Also a better link here would be to Behavioral ecology#Evolutionarily stable strategy.
Done.
The use of the word 'trophically' is unexplained - a ref to eaten would help
Linked to Wiktionary.
Would add the malaria causing Plasmodium species as not all of them do
Done.
Ref to secondary sex characteristics is not right - a mane cannot be castrated - ought to read sex organs
Removed.
In the para about fitness i think it would read better to say 'Parasites reduce the fitness of their host by....... (biological is not needed)
Done.
Think transmission needs a ‘by’ in front
Transmission here is seen as a resource.
Think the sentence is really unclear.
Reworded.
Francesco Reidi …..endoparasites and ectoparasites need spelling out in full. In the text these terms have main article links which are circular - these terms are not defined anywhere
Said 'internal and external parasites'.
Well spotted. Circular links removed, defs added.
The inclusion of microparasites and macroparasites is lacking generally both of which have pages (short).
Basically obsolete terms (why should anyone care if they're big or small). I'd consider merging or deleting both those articles, they're very poorly sourced and little more than dicdefs but that's not our concern here.
Sorted: I've mentioned them in the text and redirected the two articles here.
Thanks for the changes - would just add a final protozoa to protozoans
Done.
One more comment - think the addition 'of host exploitation' to the six strategies would make things clearer, as per ref
Done.
And one more - Ringworm is in the infection not the organism
As there is nothing of note on linked biological interactions would suggest : Parasitism is a kind of symbiosis, a close and long-term biological interaction.(unlinked) between the parasite and its host. Unlike commensalism and mutualism, the parasitic relationship causes harm to the host.
Done.
Suggest merging last two sentences : a direct parasite has only one host while an indirect parasite has a definitive host and one or more intermediate hosts.
Good idea, done.
A second link could be made to parasitic life cycle
Would change first sentence to the new improved version.
Done.
Is next sentence needed - there has been no hint to the contrary.
Readers may arrive with varied expectations.
Would 'are adaptive peaks' be better as ‘represent adaptive peaks’ ? Just read this part in paper so maybe ‘are representative of’
Done.
Also the sentence is a bit long - and - there are not many intermediate strategies (not that I could find and def not in ref) - the normal ref to mesoparasite is intermediate between endo and ecto being somewhat burrowed into part of the host.
Lost the 'many'.
Would also change the last part which repeats the first linked term
Unlinked, but reading it again now, the sentence works well.
Would still explain mesoparasitic by perhaps adding after (endo- and ectoparasitism)…..where an organism burrows into an internal part of the host’s body.
Done.
Could microscopic parasites be changed to microparasites
Best not: we haven't introduced the term so early, and we don't want to get tangled up with the misleading micro/macro distinction, see footnote.
Would query the use of direct and indirect parasites - these (as far as I can find) are not used terms - the terms used are in terms of the life cycle - direct and indirect life cycles.
Done.
Last sentence - use of two terms - generalists ought to be matched with specialists
Would reconsider info on mesoparasitic……..don’t think it’s an intermediate strategy it’s just another type of trophically transmitted endoparasite, - it could be better placed in Basic concepts (ref does't support the info other than to mention mesoparasitic and it only is applicable to the copepod).
‘They destroy completely their hosts’ ability to reproduce’ is only applicable to some species and their hosts - the ref given says totally or partially. Other info is ambiguous - says host is increased in size - ref given 12) says parasite increases in size. Ref 15) says that host increases in size (in some species and only somewhat) ; and that gigantism is a common outcome - (is mentioned in the ref given in next sentence ref 15) but only as a postulate that the author (Cheng) challenges, and nowhere is it claimed to be a common outcome. The info on size increase in parasite is given in ref.12.
Fixed.
Whilst the sentence about other systems left intact is probable i could not find it in ref.
Poulin says (pp. 110-114) both that the host "often" grows larger, and lives a normal life span.
Intertidal snail could be changed to linked sea snail.
Reworded, not convinced a link is needed here.
Ilyanassa obsoleta needs changing to Tritia obsoleta.
Done.
Last sentence needs attention - there’s a loose reference to ‘directly or indirectly castrate’ that is not explained anywhere, and there is useful info that could be used in ref distinguishing direct and indirect castration and also info on difference between direct chemical castration (as with Z. lasius) and direct mechanical castration.
Reworded, ref added.
First sentence - to avoid repetition would change to……. diverting the energy that would have been used for reproduction into……..And after gigantism would add - in the host
Done.
Would change crustacean to barnacle to separate from use of ‘crab’ and give species - in the case of Sacculina carcini…
Could change to add species of host….two thirds of their hosts the Carcinus maenus |Green crab……
See item above. Named the crab in the photo.
Can only find refs to one cestode castrator and that is of a stickleback fish - sentence claims various species ?
Said helminth.
Last sentence needs a bit of clarification as its oversimplified - There is direct and indirect chemical castration and direct (feeding on) mechanical castration.
Done, and gave example.
just to say its the trematode sporocysts that are orally challenged
First off would say that these headings would be better without the use of endoparasites and ectoparasites - their definition would be clearer as stand alone items in the sections and not attached to a route of transmission, and they do not form part of the listed strategies. They are easy enough to describe on their own.
Perhaps you suppose I didn't consider this, but I always strive to make headings as short as possible. However, the endo- and ecto- do belong, and as you say in the next item, we are only going to have to repeat the word 'parasite' a few more times if we don't keep them: basically, making the headings a word too short, at the price of repetition (and likely mental confusion in many readers) in the text immediately following. I'd call that, in a word, making things worse.
I don't suppose nothing. i was just trying to point out a different approach. You say that in not using the term in the heading will mean it to be repeated in the text but the suggestion was Heading 'Directly transmitted' text would follow one use of ectoparasite and one use of parasite. As it it there are two uses of ectoparasite - where one of each would imo be better.
Ok let's go with your approach.
The first sentence could introduce the use of ectoparasites - ‘Directly transmitted parasites are the ectoparasites that live on the host’s body,…
Oh dear. See above.
Hope you don't mind if I split the following, as there are multiple points here.
The readability could be improved.
Reworded, see below.
Also the coverage could be improved - since the page is the only home for ectoparasite there is a lot of useful information in ref 16 that could be added. Could an option be to have a separate section on the classes/characterisations of parasites - the page would benefit from further elaboration. Ectoparasites, endoparasites, enteroparasites, micro and macroparasites, hyperparasite could all have a proper home;
On micro- and macro- I disagree, as we discussed above these just mean big and small ones, and we've now got a mention in the article and redirects. Added a footnote.
On endo- and ecto-, entero-, hyper-, not sure there's much that really needs saying in a general overview (if anyone wants to create more specialised articles, that's fine): a top-level article which is already as you say quite long cannot and should not try to say everything.
perhaps include:
root and stem parasites, hemiparasite and holoparasite;
These are mentioned under Plants.
material could include a mention of vampire bats;
Biologists don't seem to mention them as parasites (though everyone else does).
Why restrict the page to biologists' interests - their inclusion could add a lot of interest to the article. They are included in the ref 13 used. This could be a cause for criterion concern in that coverage of article is incomplete. Other vertebrate parasites include the snubnose eel for example. This material would better suit Micropredators section
Good catch, and in an excellent source too. Done.
obligate and facultative parasites, some being host specific and others not;
Defs added to lead 'Basic concepts' section.
most (affecting land animals) being arthropods, crustaceans affecting fish;
Ectoparasites: added.
many being vectors of pathogens;
Def added to Basic concepts section.
and can cause problems for larger animals including anemia and hypersensitivities.
Ectoparasites: added.
even the Variations could be incorporated, as social parasite, brood parasite etc. most of these entries listed as -isms actually are named as the parasite. ?
Best as they are, or we'll end up with a very complex and confusing section.
(It seems likely the page name will change to Parasite)
Not a GA matter, and one on which I have no opinion. Either term works as a search term already, and will stay that way if the redirects are swapped over.
This was just an aside in the event that the -isms were to be changed
Would add directly to spread directly from one host to another; …..would change skin-to-skin, to close contact - fleas jump about.
Edited.
Would add the short sentence to the first …. the ectoparasites, such as fleas lice and ticks that live on the host’s body.
Done.
Would prefer something a bit more readable - Some parasites of birds are often found (think frequent is a strange choice of word) in bird nests (link) where their hosts are likely to return to. Would it be right to add where they can parasitise the young?
Edited. 'Frequent' means 'are often found in', a case of one precise word doing a rather good job, actually, but whatever, I've replaced it.
A general reader would probably read this as a verb as often goes to, but it works as treated
Probably right.
The sentence on spreading is also a bit of a sweeping and vague statement - what and where are the dormant parasites……
Don't really agree here: the sentence follows directly from the definition, going on to how the direct transmission works.
Think it reads better now due to your other changes
Great!
Why not use easier more known Dermatitis - one word instead of three
Done, but since it needs a gloss it doesn't save anything! Actually I suspect the UK public have heard of eczema but never mind.
If talking about loss of blood why not use a link to hematophagy
Linked.
A good link for ectoparasite would be to the Parasitic nutrition page which has its own section
Linked.
Would change first sentence 'are those such as lice...' to include lice, fleas....
Done.
Think reference to terrestrial arthropods is unnecessary
Removed.
Still not happy with the sentence that reads Some such……. It would read better as Bird parasites such as bird louse | lice, and feather mites (link) are often found in bird nest |nests, to which…….
Done.
Don't know if it could be clarified that the anaemia is largely iron-deficient anaemia caused by certain parasites using up the Vitamin B12
Done, but we're straying rather far from the main topic. I'm not convinced of the value of this last sentence really. On the scale of 'mosquitoes transmit malaria killing millons' this seems pretty small beer, and it only applies to one group, vertebrates.
Agree this last sentence could go - material more relevant to vectors and endoparasites - have removed it
Would link endoparasite to Parasitic nutrition page which has its own section
Done.
Would say two types of endoparasite - intercellular and intracellular - intracellular parasites can be linked
Done.
Would reword ‘living in spaces’ which could refer to sinuses, cavities and other defined spaces, to living in the tissue of the host/host’s body
It is used to apply to living in the intestines also, however, something I found surprising.
But surely there's no need to give a nod to this usage after all there are intestinal parasites and intercellular is more specific - hence if it was changed to the tissue that would encompass intestinal too
Tissues it is.
Further down there is another mention of intercellular spaces and ought to include another mention of intracellular
Well spotted, removed the repetition.
Think the last sentence could read better - Autoinfection is a circular link and could do with a bit of clarification and a link to Strongyloides stercoralis section Autoinfection . At the moment it reads as though its a normal occurrence
Done, and reworded. Feel free to tweak any of these things if you like, it may be easiest.
The first sentence is ungrammatical - Parasitoids are the insects, then - this form of parasitism.
Fixed.
Saying that it is close to predation would need a source. Many books describe a parasitoid as a predator in its adult stage and as an endoparasite in its developmental stages.
Done. The endo- bit only works for koinobionts, and not well there, given the pre-programmed end date.
The great majority could change to - Most
Ok, but it's weaker.
Could it be said that one or more eggs is laid ?
Idiobionts usually lay just one per prey; koinobionts often many.
Can it be said that an idiobiont is an ectoparasite - all it does is kill or immobilise the host it does not directly feed off the host, the larvae do.
Same as for koinobiont -
Removed the terms.
Would link these items rather than link the captions
Linked both, this is normal practice.
A little detail on the hormonal regulation would be helpful particularly as source is a book
Most of this paragraph is OR. Only the last sentence is fine. A mosquito surely attacks anything with blood in it, and it's hardly an attack more a soft landing - it's the landing ability that stops their being prematurely detected. So i would go with the ref - most micropredators are blood-feeding and - only visiting a host intermittently -
I like the early change but the sentence about attacking large animals is not in ref nor is the choice of a slow to react animal - if a mosquito lands in sight on your arm for example i would wager that you would very quickly react to swat it.....also many mosquitoes operate on sleeping people acknowledging that they could otherwise react ? - anyway it's not in ref.
You have reacted too fast, I was in the act of replacing the sentence. However, the 'attack' of micropredators is cited correctly.
This section seems out of place and think it could be better merged to Strategies. Also the table needs attention - is this table really helpful?
Ok, renamed it as Transmission strategies, it can be considered as a subroutine I guess. The table is pretty much essential, as it contains the meat of the section, illustrating the way that the changes can be rung on parasite, host, method, and context, a wealth of possibilities. Added 'many' to emphasise this. I've collapsed the table so nobody is forced to see it.
Hidden. We seem to be trying to attain an FA-level of polish here - the aka is correct and widely used, so it's a matter of taste or fine judgement whether to mention or omit it.
That's why i asked. As regards polish - i am aware that the page did not need the level of input to make GA but since there were matters that needed addressing and since we are both here - why not improve it. The first criterion for GA is decent prose which i did feel in need of improvement. I think you took two weeks for the Human brain GA ?
Not sure I follow the reasoning here, but never mind, feel free to make tweaks. On the other article, not that it sets any kind of precedent, many serious changes were needed, to which I contributed; if I recall, editors then polished it for many weeks after GA.
Is there a need to name all the groups as included when no group seems to be excluded.
I've done it to lead into the text which would otherwise come across as disconnected. From the point of view of a reader, it gives a quick idea of the range, and of course it's handy for essays. If it's the word you mean, I've ditched the "including".
That helps; is there a way to use fewer refs at the end of the sentence rather than one for each term.
Thanks. I guess we could hunt for a suitable source, but it's only an aesthetic matter at most, certainly not a GA issue.
I removed the refs without looking here first - I was thinking of rewriting the sentence anyway and also the one on microparasites which is not quite right.
Not to worry. Of course there's an ever-present of someone's objecting it's OR.
I see you added a single ref to solve the problem, for which many thanks!
Formatting - think the table could be moved up to the first paragraph keeping the wording from - The animal phyla and classes with the largest numbers......in table. Then the Animals section could follow along with the other sections. ?
This surely isn't within the GA criteria: I'd say that the table logically belongs in 'Animals' as that's what it covers, and it doesn't apply to the other sections. If you still wish to move and format it, do as you like.
Could do with the addition of microsporidia - sugggest - Microsporidia is a group of obligate intracellular parasitic fungi that can also act as hyperparasites. They largely affect insects but a smaller percentage affects vertebrates including humans where they can cause an intestinal infection known as microsporidiosis. PMID 1556783
Hi Chiswick chap - re sections on Directly transmitted Trophically transmitted and vector transmitted - the info is not as ref given (Poulin). For example the ref to directly transmitted parasites (unlike section) includes endoparasites and the definition is of one parasite one host and excludes fleas....this seems to be confused elsewhere with the refs to ectoparasites. Most sources define ectoparasites as living on the host so excludes mosquitoes, vampire bats etc...these are classed as micropredators which are defined in most sources as those that live intermittently on a host and using many hosts to feed off... Tropical transmitted as two or more hosts.....they mature and reproduce in the def host
Sorry you're having a pother with PC and refs. Basically ectoparasites are on host, and that doesn't include mosquitoes. I've said "primary" in trophically transmitted, and "intermittent" in micropredator. I've moved the non-intermittent parasites out of there and used them to illustrate how the basic concepts apply, more or less, to things other than terrestrial animals. The problem is one of focus - most (older) textbooks think parasites are medical/veterinary, failing to consider parasites of plants, parasitoids, and marine life (to name a few of their many failings). The topic is, in detail, almost infinitely complex, but I think we have what the GA criteria call "the main points" pretty well sewn up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that the topic is complex - even more reason for the prose to be clearer and well sourced.
I'll say again - the information given using ectoparasites and endoparasites is confusing and not in the ref given. which makes it OR. ? The ref makes no mention of these terms in either of the sections. Just the ref to 'parasites' is enough. The material in section is not only confusing but wrong - directly transmitted includes helminths and microorganisms - the section just refers to ectoparasites.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just expand some on this - the whole paragraph needs redoing:
Rewritten directly transmitted; trophically-transmitted, in part; vector-transmitted, using Poulin/Randhawa, and additional sources as indicated.
In vector transmitted - you’ve taken info from the life cycles section of the ref which is different from the first use of insect vectors in Fields of study - as the section is on the strategy think it ought to be defined as previously as the first vectors (insects) Otherwise all good to go.
Ah, I thought you were speaking about Poulin/Randhawa. I took only the aside on hosts from the Overview article. The insect vectors bit in Overview focuses on medical parasitology, and tells little about insects really, other than it's Entomology and so not Parasitology's business! I can't tell from your comment if any action is needed, but I've repeated P/R ref for clarity.
On this note does the page need a section devoted to life cycles ?
the information on puncturing the skin and causing dermatitis though of note is out of place in this section which is just about the strategy.
Removed, thank you.
The addition of 'facilitating transmission between parent and young' not clear - as if the mites etc are in the nest they can transmit through contact with the young. There are three refs given to support one short sentence.
Simplified, and slimmed down the refs.
The Hematophagy hatnote is not needed here.
Removed.
Can the term aggregated distribution be explained, simplified or otherwise changed as it means nothing to a general reader. It is used three times on the page.
It is introduced and explained where first used in 'Directly transmitted': "most individuals are free or almost free of parasites, while a minority carry a large number of parasites, so the distribution is highly uneven (aggregated)."
That is still unclear 'uneven' is bracketed as aggregated which is not a general meaning of uneven - If that is all it means uneven distribution why use the unknown aggregated?
I can't speak for "unknown", but have said this pattern is described as aggregated. It does not just mean uneven.
Should the sentence on Tetramorium be separated to the intraspecific part. Or maybe adjust by adding either interspecific or intraspecific in first sentence
Added 'interspecific'.
Since sibling parasitism is more readily understood than adelpho- would place that as the first choice and just aka adelpho without extras such as brother - adelphos is brother and adelphis is sister and both are relevant so easier just to use sibling.
It was my fault for trying to explain the term in the first place by adding 'brother' - and since adelphos and adelphis are different genders of the same word, adelpho not adelphos is the covering name. And this is not referred to as such as far as i can see - one ref explains it using 'kin' and is used in contrast to alloparasite. And many more choosing sibling instead. The source you used refers to adelphohyperparasite which really makes a lot more sense and it might be better placed in the hyperparasite section.
Is that correct to say that the skin evolved to....wouldn't that be classed as innate?
Would the ref to mammals immune system be extendable to vertebrates
Just re-read the context so maybe forget these points
OK
A useful addition would be the development of thicker eggshells by some birds - forget where i saw this
Cowbirds have pierce-resistant shells to defeat their brood hosts' attempts at rejection. Added.
Can I suggest that the second sentence be improved - it’s too long; it might read ok for someone used to the terms. It needs breaking up into understandable sections by explaining however briefly the terms used.
Simplified, glossed, and split sentence.
A change might also be to - However there may be a trade-off between immunocompetence and the development of secondary sex characteristics, such as the plumage of peacocks and the manes of lions in male vertebrate hosts.
Done.
Could you also look at the next sections - sorry but probably back tomorrow
I'll look again, sorry to hear you're so busy. Any pointers will be welcome.
Why the use of breeding - the sexual characteristics develop before they're sexually active - i think - however still not relevant? And the manes of male lions - only males have manes. (not so much busy as battling)
Breeding - many spp. have the features only/mainly in season, e.g. many birds. Done.
There has been a lot of extra work put into the article and I am confident that the article more than meets all the Good article criteria. The level of prose and comprehensiveness is impressive. The only comment I would add for future improvement is that it might benefit from a little more explanation of terms, or more detail of some of the many interesting items. Been a pleasure.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done