# Talk:Intraproboscis

This review is transcluded from Talk:Intraproboscis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Mattximus (talk · contribs) 01:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 03:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again Mattximus, I will take on this review. Comments within a few days. Let me know if this is intended for FAC, and, if you'd like, I could be extra nitpicky. Esculenta (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Depending on how this goes, I'm happy to take it on to FAC and would be happy to co-nominate with you if you are interested in collaborating. Either way, thanks for your recommendations. I believe your last one of mine did make it to FA! Mattximus (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments: here's some initial thoughts (will have more to say later; haven't checked for other sources yet). Esculenta (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Spot checks: I checked all of the citations for three of the sources:
Amin et al. 2021. There are some instances where the Wikipedia article closely follows the wording of the original paper, which could potentially be considered close paraphrasing:
In the Description section, several technical descriptions of the proboscis, hooks, and body structure follow very similar wording to the original paper; in particular, the description of the hooks and their measurements, the description of the proboscis receptacle, and several sentences in the hosts section about the life cycle.
I tried breaking up the measurements/description with the addition of the male measurements from a different paper. What do you think of this? Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Additional context: although the article provides accurate taxonomic and morphological information but would benefit from additional context in several areas:
why is the discovery of this genus important to parasitology? According to Amin et al. 2021, this was the first finding of a parareceptacle structure in Archiacanthocephala, and represents an important taxonomic and evolutionary discovery that bridges understanding between different acanthocephalan groups.
Done - added this in both the lead and the taxonomy sections, with slightly different wording. Mattximus (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
additional info that might be included from this paper:
the rarity of acanthocephalan infections in pangolins globally (only 4 other species previously known from African pangolins according to the paper)
I think this statement may not be best to include as rarity is probably an artefact from lack of study rather than a real rarity. Mattximus (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Rodríguez et al. 2022. Both citations to this source are accurate. Some additional info that might be used from this paper:
The paper shows that Intraproboscis sanghae forms a separate lineage from Mediorhynchus in their 18S rDNA analysis (page 5), which further confirms its status as a distinct genus beyond just morphological differences. - Done
The paper notes that "the family Gigantorhynchidae was not found monophyletic but forming two lineages... One corresponds to a clade formed by all species of Mediorhynchus... and the other is formed solely by Intraproboscis sanghae" (page 4); this provides context about the still-evolving understanding of relationships within this group.
I'm a bit confused about this as there is a third clade (Gigantorhynchus). Not sure what to do here. Mattximus (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Mathison et al. 2021. Citations to this source are accurate
In looking up this stuff, it seems I missed [1]! I don't know how I would have missed this important article. I will have to incorporate it into the text and then complete the remaining few requests. Mattximus (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Prose:

"Intraproboscis is a monotypic genus of acanthocephalans (thorny-headed or spiny-headed parasitic worms) that infest African black-bellied pangolin in the Central African Republic." as a monotypic genus, it doesn't have acanthocephalans (plural), but rather, a single acanthocephalan. maybe "Intraproboscis is a genus of Acanthocephala (thorny-headed or spiny-headed parasitic worms) with a single species that infests African black-bellied pangolins in the Central African Republic." (avoiding jargony "monotypic" in lead sentence) - Done
"This genus resembles species in the genus Mediorhynchus but is characterized by infesting a mammal instead of birds, having a simple proboscis receptacle that is completely suspended within the proboscis, the passage of the retractor muscles through the receptacle into the body cavity posteriorly, absence of a neck, presence of a parareceptacle structure, and a uterine vesicle." This is a long and jargon-filled sentence for the lead. At this point in the article, the average reader is unlikely to be familiar with the terms proboscis, retractor muscles, parareceptacle, uterine vesicle.
I tried to remove a lot of the jargon, what do you think of the new truncated sentence? Mattximus (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
"Several phylogenetic studies have been performed confirming it's position" it's -> its, and there's an extra period - Done
In the paragraph starting "The proboscis (a tubular organ for attachment...)", there's awkward phrasing: "with spines forming dome-shaped folds in the outer covering." This could be clearer about what outer covering is being referenced; maybe "with spines forming dome-shaped folds in the tegument (outer body covering)" (assuming that it is referring to the tegument or body wall of the proboscis) - Done
" "The hooks in the anterior proboscis increase in size..." - Done
""The spinelike hooks in posterior proboscis more or less similar in size..." should be "The spinelike hooks in the posterior proboscis are more or less similar in size..." (missing "the" and "are")" - Done
In the paragraph starting "The proboscis receptacle (a sac holding the proboscis)...": "attaching at the division between the anterior and posterior proboscis" might be clearer as "attaching at the division between the anterior and posterior portions of the proboscis" - Done
"a large uterine bell (a funnel like opening..." should be "a funnel-like opening" (hyphenated) - Done
"without noticeable glands" - consider rephrasing for clarity, e.g. "a large uterine bell (a funnel-like opening continuous with the uterus for directing eggs) that lacks the glandular structures typically found in related species" - Done
"387μm long by 322μm wide and are encircled by complex uterine tubules system" - there should be spaces (preferably non-breaking spaces) after the numbers before "μm" and "are encircled" doesn't agree with the subject ("vesicle"). For extra polish you could put non-breaking spaces into all of the short-form binomials (to avoid ugly line breaks). - Done
In the Hosts section, there's an inconsistency: first it states the host is the "long-tailed pangolin" but previously the article mentioned "black-bellied pangolin" - Done
"from specimens (four females and zero males) extracted post-mortem" suggest "from four female specimens extracted post-mortem" - Done
"is supported by six distinct morphological features" and then we read about "Firstly", then "Additionally", then "Third" … so should probably have "Fourth" and "Finally" to maintain parallel structure
For this one I rephrased the whole thing into a giant sentence which I'm usually reluctant to do, but the six points seems to flow better than using all those numerical words. What do you think?
"Firstly, is characterized" needs "it" or "Intraproboscis" as a subject - Done
the cladogram should be labelled as such (rather than a "Phylogenetic reconstruction"); since there are more than species shown in the cladogram, should be "select taxa in the class" - Done
In my opinion, having two maps is completely unnecessary; there should be a way to add the "type locality dot" to the range map, and then use the range map in the taxobox. A bonus of this would be to avoid the right hand-images pushing down into the references.
Yes I agree, I took some time to try and merge the images but I've not been able to so far. The host range is too low resolution to manually add a dot and have it look reasonable, and I couldn't simply put a location pin on that image automatically. I'll keep thinking what to do. Mattximus (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Actually with the addition of the second map, it makes more sense to be formatted this way. I think I'm happy with the 3 maps now. Mattximus (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I did a few but will be able to complete them this weekend. Thanks for the thorough review! Mattximus (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Esculenta, I have addressed all comments with either a question for you, or a Done where I simply implemented your recommendation. Thank you so much for this thorough review, the article is already significantly better. Mattximus (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Mattximus, here's a second set of nitpicky comments after a fresh read: Esculenta (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the lead needs some work; it seems to have the order of presentation wrong, discussing its resemblance to a similar genus that the average Wikipedia reader (the lead has to be made accessible to everybody) will probably not know anything about, instead of providing basic information about what the organism is. It introduces undefined jargon (parareceptacle structure). Note how proboscis is redundantly linked and explained twice. We don't learn that the genus only has a single species until midway through the long single lead paragraph; this is a fundamental fact that should appear early. "infests" is used in the lead sentence, but "infestation" isn't linked until the final sentence. And it's not the genus "Intraproboscis" that infests these animals, but rather the  species Intraproboscis sanghae that does this.
These are excellent suggestions. I've tried to reword it to meet all your recommendations. The only thing I didn't change was the genus infests the two pangolins. If it has only one species, isn't it safe to say the genus infests them? For example, Tyrannosaurus was a meat eater. I could absolutely be wrong and welcome any rewording. Mattximus (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough! Esculenta (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
There's confusion regarding the male specimens. The text first states "no males were sampled" but later provides male measurements. This inconsistency should be clarified by explaining that male measurements came from a separate sample discovered later, as indicated by reference "Amin2021b" in the table
I added the incomplete male into the lead to avoid confusion. Done
"The black-bellied pangolin, is a vulnerable species[6] which is at high risk of extinction in the wild,[8] has been found in Dzanga-Sangha Complex of Protected Areas, the type locality, located in the extreme southwest part of the Central African Republic." seems to be 3 sentences stuffed into one! Done
You are correct. As I age my writing seems to be getting worse. Split sentence. Mattximus (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
"The genus and species Intraproboscis sanghae was formally described" the species was described, but the genus was circumscribed, so might want to tweak the wording of this
Tweaked. Done Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
it seems to me that the cladogram is a combination of results from separate studies using separate markers (28S rRNA vs. 18S rDNA gene). I recall there was a ToL discussion about this with the conclusion that doing so (combining parts of trees from different studies) should be considered WP:OR (and, by extension, not acceptable for Wikipedia article).
Yes you are correct, I'm not happy with the current tree either as the paper cited includes multiple different trees and I do not know which one to report. I will give this a think. Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
some suggestions for tightening the prose:
"This genus closely resembles species in the genus Mediorhynchus but with several differences including..." suggest "This genus closely resembles Mediorhynchus but differs in having..." Done
"The discovery was also the first instance of a parareceptacle structure in Archiacanthocephala representing an important taxonomic and evolutionary discovery that bridges understanding..." suggest "This first discovery of a parareceptacle structure in Archiacanthocephala represents an important taxonomic and evolutionary bridge between different acanthocephalan groups." Done
"The female worms are up to 180 mm long, virtually all of which is the trunk, and 2 mm wide whereas the male is smaller in all measurements..." suggest "Female worms reach up to 180 mm long (mostly trunk) and 2 mm wide, while males are smaller in all dimensions..." Done
"The proboscis is shaped like a truncated cone (flat at the top and tapering down), cylindrical at the front and cone-shaped at the back." suggest "The proboscis has a truncated cone shape—cylindrical at the front and conical at the back." Done
"The anterior part of the proboscis has two sensory pores (small openings for detecting stimuli) at the tip..." suggest "The anterior proboscis has two sensory pores at the tip..." Done but kept the definition as per a previous FA review.
"The classification of the genus Intraproboscis within the family Giganthorhynchidae is supported by six distinct morphological features that separate it from the genus Mediorhynchus which it closely resembles." suggest "Six distinct morphological features support Intraproboscis's classification within Giganthorhynchidae and distinguish it from the similar genus Mediorhynchus." - Done
"The genus name Intraproboscis refers to the unusual position of the proboscis receptacle within the proboscis and the specific name sanghae derives from the tribal name..." suggest "The name Intraproboscis refers to the proboscis receptacle's unusual internal position, while sanghae derives from the Sangha tribal region where specimens were collected." -Done
"Once inside the intermediate host, the acanthor sheds its outer layer in a process called molting, transitioning into its next stage, the acanthella." suggest "Inside the intermediate host, the acanthor molts its outer layer, becoming an acanthella." - Done
"The reproductive system is compact but well-developed, with a round uterine vesicle (a sac involved in egg storage and transport containing one anterior and two lateral lobes, 387 μm long by 322 μm wide and is encircled by complex uterine tubules system) connected to a tubular structure..." suggest "The reproductive system is compact but well-developed, featuring a round uterine vesicle (387 μm × 322 μm) with anterior and lateral lobes encircled by complex uterine tubules and connected to a tubular structure..."
Done but left in definition (shortened)
please combine the duplicate citation Amin et al. 2021, which appears twice in the reflist. Done
(beyond GA) you might want to properly citation format Sist et al. 2021, and check the author abbreviation formatting (e.g. is it "Amin, O.M." or Amin, O. M."?) Why is "J Clin Microbiol." specifically in abbreviated format? If you do go for FAC, they may request smaller pages ranges to make verification easier, so advance warning.
I believe I have caught all of these. Done
(beyond GA) for best practices, for monotypic genera, the Wikidata Q number for the species should also be included in the Taxonbar
I've done this, but I do not know why the second row is not showing up, any ideas?
Weird! Not sure why it's not showing up. Esculenta (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
+ Category:Rotifer genera? Category:Taxa described in 2021? Category:Parasitic animals of mammals?
I do not believe the move to rotifer has been accepted by the community, has it? The auto-taxobox fluctuates depending on the week between the two phyla. Mattximus (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Not an expert, so I'll defer to your judgement. Esculenta (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Esculenta for your incredibly detailed review. I've made almost every single change or commented when it could not be completed. There seems to be the outstanding issue of the phylogenetic tree, but otherwise I believe it is looking considerably better than before this nomination. Mattximus (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Final comments:

In the Description section: "The body wall is much thicker on the dorsal side compared to the ventral side, containing many fragmented nuclei and a few large nuclei located at the front." - This sentence structure implies that the "ventral side" contains the "fragmented nuclei," which may not be the intended meaning. -Done
In the Host section, there's an incomplete sentence: "The black-bellied pangolin, the type host, by using their proboscis hooks to pierce and hold the wall of the intestines." This sentence doesn't have a proper structure - it seems to be missing a verb or has an incomplete thought. Done
So I think the only remaining issues are the the minor prose fixes above and the cladogram. I'll put this on hold to give you time to figure this out. Esculenta (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Should be all done by this Sunday (April 13). Will that work? Mattximus (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Fine with me! I'll be somewhat distracted the rest this month by the European Stubathon, so I'm not in any rush. Esculenta (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
OK everything is done all suggestions addressed. The only remaining issue is the cladogram is indeed a synthesis of several cladograms. The latest document has multiple versions of this cladogram and I can't yet figure out which one I should use. They are all presented as valid. If I can't figure this out in a few days I'll just take one of them at random and show that one. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the extra time, I had a medical issue last week and should be back on this very soon. Mattximus (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
There is a discussion on my talk page about a source used in this article, it's been deleted because it's journal belongs to a predatory publisher. I'm seeking solutions and clarifications. It's critical to this page. Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd be satisfied with you using the source and a {{Predatory publisher}} template in the citation (and perhaps an explanatory note you mentioned on your talk page). I did the same with a predatory source that was essential for a species article (it was the protologue for Graphis neeladriensis). Let's try to get this wrapped up soon! Esculenta (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Done!!! I updated the cladogram so it is only from one source, and added the predatory comment you suggested. I did create an alternative cladogram that is the complete copy from the article but it looked worse to me. What do you think? Other than that, it's done! Thanks for your patience, and your excellent review. Mattximus (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the cladogram in the article illustrates the phylogenetic relationships well enough (I removed/replaced some unnecessary bolding with italics). Please check and standardize the spelling of order Gigantorhynchida and family Giganthorhynchidae; is the "h" used or not? With these latest changes, I think the article is now safely in GA-territory, and will promote at this time. Esculenta (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)