# Talk:Aonchotheca forresteri

This review is transcluded from Talk:Capillaria forresteri/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, okay you know the drill - notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I still think that if you embellish John Kinsella with, say, "John Kinsella of X insititution" or "naturalist/zoologist/vetinarian/ etc." then it helps a nonacademic reader follow the flow - i.e was he a worm or rodent specialist/zoologist or vet.
I have been able to find very little biographical information about him. In 1988, he was at the Department of Infectious Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, and in 1974 he was an Archbold Research Fellow in Florida. He now seems to be somewhere in Montana. I am hesitant to label him a vet or otherwise because I don't know what degree he actually got.
Fair enough. don't do anything unless something concrete comes up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Would be great to somehow remove one of the two instances of the word "study" if possible in the first sentence of the taxo section. I know it will be tricky as nothing sprung to mind to me either.
Done—"survey".
Now why didn't I think of that....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the slimness of the article, I wonder if there is some scope to discuss the circumstances of the study by Kinsella - or conversely were they looking for means of control of the rat or looking into any particular pathology (eg falling rat populations, was it fortuitous or expected etc. Some context would give the article a nice bit of colour and might be educational for lay readers.
He doesn't really say why he did it (well, what he says is "Because the literature on the helminth fauna of the rice rat consisted only of scattered records"). I added that, actually—it's something, at least.
That's good - I think it is always worth highlighting to readers which fields of biology are poorly covered. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It is one of many species of Capillaria, a taxonomically difficult genus, - is interesting - the first bit sounds very definite and concrete, but the second qualifies it as if it may not be. And I don't understand but may be closest to some other small worms that live in the digestive systems of mammals - are these other small worms in the same genus or another genus? Would it be better to rejig as   It is classified in the large genus Capillaria, which has some complex taxonomic issues or something similar?
I am not entirely sure I understand your issue here, but I attempted some small clarification.
Um...I'll wait till you rejig it to the new genus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Done now. I had to add mainly to this section, of course. Ucucha 01:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It is most similar to C. putorii, which is found in carnivorans in North America and Europe - what, all of them? Important to clarify as many parasites are very specific, is this latter species a general one?
My source doesn't say more than this. I looked around a little on Google Books and found this and this, which do list a rather large variety of carnivorans (along with hedgehogs). Interestingly, the latter source says that C. putorii was moved to another genus, Aonchotheca, which suggests that this one may have been moved as well. I'll look further.
As it turns out, it was. New source added. I couldn't find any other information under this new name. Ucucha 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that, I changed it myself to "a variety of carnivora Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It is narrowest at the front and increases in width to about three fourths of its length. - is that what you call the front end of a worm? I suppose..it has no head as such, does it? My knowledge of annelids is vestigial....
No need for that anyway; it's a nematode. What I mean is that very narrowest piece is the front tip, and from there it gradually becomes broader up to 3/4 of its length, where the widest point is. But I don't think that's very clear.
Okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  -  I can't see anything else to add or improve. I trust you've dug up every source available, and I am finding fewer and fewer prose issues with each article of yours I see. Nice job. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)