Talk:Parasitism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 23:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Start assessment:

0 Lede

It is not clear that the first paragraph of this lede works as well as the start of the second paragraph. Your current first sentence of the first paragraph does not really distinguish parasitism from predator-prey relations. However, the first sentence of the second paragraph does this better. Consider adapting the wording for an improved first paragraph in the lede. The reader should be able to state if a mosquito is parasitic after reading the lede. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rewrote 1st para of lead.

The Wilson material looks quite fine here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

One word addition to lede sentence. From 'a non-mutual relationship' to 'a non-mutual behavioural relationship'. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not what biologists and parasitologists say, and it would be wrong as the relationship also involves physical, chemical and immunological adaptations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rather then use the adjective "non-mutual" my suggestion then would be to use "exploitative" in its place.

Done. Since mutualism (biology) is linked, I've added (non-mutual) to make it clear why that's the link target.

Your first sentence in the lede has become somewhat long which appears as: "In biology, parasitism is an exploitative (non-mutual) relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host, which remains alive, at least for a while." My suggestion is to go with a two sentence version like: "In biology, parasitism is an exploitative and non-mutual relationship between interacting species. One species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host, which may survive or die from the interaction." Or something like that. Later in the lede you again use your favorite word "continuum" which we have agreed to change to 'spectrum' of types. Again, "continuum" is not, is not, a synonym for the symbolic use of the phrase "continuum of severity" in your reliable source. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've explained the whys and wherefores of this at Parasitoid. Basically, the first sentence needs to be rather complete as it's widely used as a summary, like it or not. This one is only 32 words, and it says what needs to be said. Splitting it may have many merits, but it doesn't meet the requirement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Separately, your title for this article could or could not have been "Parasites", why choose the one over the other? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly it's historical accident and I have no preference in the matter: either way, there are redirects in place so either term immediately finds the article. If you want to do a requested move, it should happen after the GA process is complete to avoid tangling up all the GA1 links. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Basically its your choice on this. See my comments in your sister article for comments about your 3 closely related articles. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we just leave it, there's nothing to gain by swapping the titles over - whichever way we do it, one is a redirect, the other the title, and both work as search terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

1 Etymology

Simple and straightforward. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

2 Types

Consider changing your wording here to "Within the characterized scope". Wilson's definition is currently better than the one in the current lede and possibly consider adding it there. See my comments above on lede. Also, in this section or perhaps a stand alone section there should be some contrast drawn between various forms of symbiotic relations, and other dependent forms of co-development such as predator-prey, or male-female co-dependency, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, have put Wilson in the lead. Also led in with brief discussion of symbioses.

2.1 Evolutionary strategies

This graph appears overdone and the first 3 circles really do not connect with anything else in the diagram. It is simply a list which is already covered in the narrative of this article. Consider dropping the first 3 types as non-informative in this graph. The latter two circles should be updated based on the previous article assessment last week, and the graph relabeled accordingly.

Well I guess you knew we'd part company here; it is however easy to refute your suggestion. Firstly, the value in showing something graphically goes far beyond repeating the text, and we'd hardly want the two not to be aligned. Secondly, of the first 3, endo- and ecto-parasites are self-evidently relevant to the article, while micropredators are directly compared with ectoparasites in the diagram as very similar strategies with different traditional names, and form strategy #6 so they certainly belong. I'll redraw the dead-host arc for you now: if either the server or your client take time to refresh, you can check on Commons and you'll know it's them, not me.

Someone needs to contact the village pump and post this problem of very slow uploads from updated Wikicommons files. There is no reason that this process should take days. I will not over-rehearse this here again, but you might enjoy and benefit from reading or glancing at one of the popular titles on graphics design which are readily available and highly useful. You obviously put significant time into the writing of your articles, and your graphics can be easily bumped up in quality once you have a chance to glance at a book on graphics design with the many ideas and guidelines that are covered there. For now, however, the problem with Wikicommons uploads needs some attention. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please don't go there again. I find that pressing Firefox's little refresh (circular) arrow does the job just fine. I've updated the image, anything else is not our concern here.

Separately, please note that in the graphics which you use for "Life cycle of Entamoeba histolytica" that all of the component parts of the diagram are interconnected and interrelated, which is not the case for your graphics here.

Well, the steps in a life-cycle are going to be connected by a circular timeline, aren't they, whereas strategies pursued by different types of parasite are to be compared, with parallels shown by colour-coding, labels, shapes, and so forth (all of which are used already).

My example was to give a instance of a very finely made graphic to one which would look much better as a simple table. I will simply mention that your graphic here looks like it might have been taken from a power point presentation and simply adapted for this Wikipedia article. Graphs that are used at power point presentations often have the benefit of the speakers who add live descriptions to the diagrams which give them more utility. In this instance, the material in the diagram is much better presented as a simple table of 4 or behavioural strategies. The caption is also awkward and might look better as: "Five behavioural strategies compared. Micropredation, Ectoparasitic, Endoparasitic, Parasitoidal, and Predatory. Micropredation and parasitoidy are now considered as strategies within parasitism." The word 'continuum' is a poor option here and your own source uses the 3-word phrase 'continuum of X' symbolically rather than literally. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. Continuum is however reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

'Continuum of severity' is the only reliable source and not for 'continuum.' Please be consistent with your other article where you have agreed to go with your use of 'spectrum' as a full substitute for your symbolic use of 'continuum'. Please be consistent and replace it or drop it. The use of the word 'continuum' must be dropped from the caption to this graphic and replaced by 'spectrum' or the sentence using your favorite word must be dropped. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any such "favorite word" - the terms are practically synonymous (continuum being slightly preferable to spectrum). I've trimmed the caption for you.

Futile, though you would much enjoy leafing through any book published by Graphis (with an 's') which might be in your local library. Separately, is there a reason why you would not list it on the village pump? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to do so: as on the earlier GAN, I have updated the diagrams, as you can verify on Commons, and on my machine the diagrams display correctly in the articles. Finis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

By all means, let's start using foreign languages to be definitive. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You list 6 major strategies, are there others? JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

A division into 6 is cited. No doubt every case, seen in enough detail, is different.

Which seems to say that there are 6 basic strategies and a geometrical number of combinations of them. Saying 'major' seems to suggest that they are the most common ones, when in fact there are no frequency data in your enumeration to suggest that one strategy occurs more commonly than others. Should they be called 'major' or should they be called 'basic' or 'rudimentary' strategies from which hybrid strategies are formed? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's follow Poulin's "basic". But Poulin's 'evolutionary peaks' that the article already mentions means that the 6 strategies are pretty distinct: the 6 tall 'mountains' are separated by wide 'valleys' and it's generally easy to see which strategy is used by any particular parasite.

Poulin works. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

2.2 Classification

All of these subsections appears adequately discussed. More on available full genome maps would be nice, as well as discussion of any research done for behavioural genes which might correspond to parasitism, perhaps similar to aggression genes which have been studied for Drosophila. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

2.2.1 Ectoparasites

Is there any sense of which ones have full genome maps and which ones do not? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Work has been done on some groups (e.g. ticks) to discover their phylogeny but that is not our concern here. I suppose you are wondering about developing medicines based on specific knowledge of certain parasites, but I've not heard of anything like that yet (other than the malaria vaccine, of course).

The malaria vaccine is a good start on this. Is it worthwhile getting into the more complex discussion of amelioration of symptoms caused by infection through the use of penicillin and antibiotic inoculation, for example, as occurs with many STDs which are often not fully curable. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Those are handled extensively in other articles, and are not generally thought of as parasitism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Are all those other articles linked here in this article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No reason why they should be: if a topic has two or more subtopics, which each have their own subsubtopics, there's no reason to link all the subsubtopics together.

Your appear to believe that progress in halting the progress of parasitic forms is unrelated to developing a cure for them, as was done with malaria. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

See below (Evolutionary ecology). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

2.2.2 Endoparasites

2.2.3 Mesoparasites

2.2.4 Parasitoids

2.2.5 Hyperparasites

2.2.6 Social parasites

2.2.7 Adelpho-parasites

2.2.8 Sexual parasites

2.3 Parasitic plants

2.4 Parasitic fungi

2.5 Parasitic bacteria

2.6 Viruses

See comment above. What about the issue of innoculations which ameliorate symptoms of viruses without curing them. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

3 Transmission

This table appears to cover some examples. Should these examples in any way correspond to the evolutionary types enumerated in the previous section, for example, one for each of the six. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The examples are chosen (from a vast range) to illustrate the kinds of combination of host, transmission method, and ecological context that are possible. There is no particular correspondence with the evolutionary types.

Your examples given are just fine, though should there be a least one example for each basic evolution type you previously enumerated? Is the list fully representative or a random sampling? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I've explained they are deliberately distributed to illustrate diversity, which is self-evidently non-random. It doesn't much matter which type they're from, either.

Diversity explanation works. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

4 Host defenses

Host defenses will vary depending on the size of the parasite in question. An exoskeleton will not help all that much at the bacterial or viral level. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed not, but we're straying into the territory of other articles there.

It ought not to be called a "first line of defense" then. Possibly, try the wording "One line of defense is..." . JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

See below.

4.1 Vertebrates

See comment above. "First line of defense" wording which you use does not really help here when dealing with bacteria and viruses. An exoskeleton does not help that much against viruses. Adjust the wording to deal with the type of parasite being studied. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Said 'such as bacteria' for the skin.

Not sure "first line" wording works here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Cut.

That works well. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

4.2 Insects

Should there be some examples here to correspond to the many classes listed in your Classification section above? JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We'd be into repetition territory if we tried that. The aim of the whole section is just to illustrate the main points, and it's already quite long for a subtopic. No doubt there's scope for an in-depth article on Anti-parasite adaptation to match anti-predator adaptation, which I'll gladly link to when somebody feels like writing it.

4.3 Plants

The gene-to-gene recognition you mention seems exotic. In this covered in the SA Frank (2000) article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've copy-edited it to seem rather plainer, and yes, it's in Frank.

5 Evolutionary ecology

Does this section need to deal with immunization and inoculation to be comprehensive? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've put it in History, which seems a good place for it.

See my note above. Inoculation for amelioration of symptoms, short of cure and short of full immunization, still would seem a useful addition. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As above, it's out of scope: medicine views inoculation as far removed from parasitism.

Inoclation against parasites as you have defined them in this article is the theme here. Your conclusion is to say that inoculation to control STDs using penicillin or antibiotics is irrelevant as a check against these parasites? JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said, medical people don't think of such disease agents as parasites, but as pathogens.

I shall ask the question of mutations found in oncology which consume the host tissue for the benefit of their own growth in the host. Is it worth mention in any way? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Cancers are as you say mutated forms of their hosts, indeed each cancer is a form of the individual it is growing in, the very same organism, so it is not a parasite.

5.1 Coevolution and cospeciation

5.2 Coevolution favoring mutualism

5.3 Competition favoring virulence

5.4 Modifying host behavior

5.5 Parasite-stress theory

5.6 Trait loss

5.7 Secondary sex characteristics

Does a fully maned lion reproduce more frequently as a result of such secondary characteristics advantageously? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the argument. Not easy subjects for controlled experiments, mind you.

There are parts of this which are fairly well understood, such as rivalry with other males for territorial dominance which leads to alpha dominance with sexual mates in those conquered territories. Larger antlers lead to increased success among rival disputes, large manes lead to a more fierce appearance as visual queues, etc. Is it worth mentioning? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, covered in other articles such as dominance hierarchy, and far out of scope here.

Suggest to change opening sentence here from 'suggested as part of the explanation' to 'suggested as partially contributing to the explanation...'. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that means the same thing, only less well expressed. Best leave it as it is.

Your use of the phrase "as part of" suggests that you know what the other parts are. The article for "Secondary sex characteristics" does not mention 'parasitism' at all and is only a start or stub article. Could you at least mention the main parts of signaling theory and mating queues which rival parasitism in importance here. Your plumage and manes approach falls short of mentioning territorial dominance as being significant in mate selection. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for that other article, nor is its state an issue here. I do not think 'as part of' and 'as partially contributing to' differ in their implication here: both of them imply there are mechanisms within sexual selection that are influenced by parasitism. The section already summarizes the argument, which is to do with sexual selection, and I have added a link to that article now.

5.8 Parasite-host assemblages

5.9 Extended phenotype

5.10 Value

5.11 Quantitative ecology

6 History

There would appear to be many advantage from addressing immunization somewhere in this section by way of its history. Immunization against various maladies is seen as advantageous nearly invariably. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

6.1 Ancient

6.2 Medieval

6.3 Early Modern

6.4 Birth of modern parasitology

7 Cultural significance

7.1 Classical times

7.2 Society

7.3 Fiction

This is amusing. Do you have a special interest in speculative fiction applied to experimental sciences or am I misreading here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. It's standard practice to provide a section that relates science topics to human society, and the citations show that biologists have done the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of this I have seen in the press also. Do you also have an interest in such books as "The Science of Star Trek" or "The Science of Alien"? They are popular with the public though a bit on the speculative side. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the GA guidelines' "the main points" is the watchword here. There is much more in the articles linked in the section.

Possibly you could add Heinlein's Starship Troopers to this amusing list? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Heinlein's 'bugs' are not stated to be parasitic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You even know of Heinlein? JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. You shouldn't be asking such things, but I have read 8 of his novels. If you know that Heinlein called the bugs parasites, let me know the citation with page reference and I'll add it to the article with pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing uncivil here and this is your section and your selected topic which is being discussed and not mine. Your use of Ridley Scott's Aliens, and your mention of reading 8 Heinlein novels suggests that you must know that Heinlein's novel has his insects killing and destroying humans for their own benefit just as Scott has his Aliens killing and destroying humans. If you see no connection then you see no connection in this amusing little section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, nobody is questioning that the Heinlein bugs kill and destroy, the issue is whether they are stated to be parasites (or parasitoids), rather than just predators and enemies, which is how it seems. Scott's Aliens grow inside humans and kill them when they emerge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

New section on viruses and malaria vaccination looks quite good, some added comments added over-night above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks.

Getting close in the article. It would be nice to bring this to some outcome in the next day or two. See my comments above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have replied to all your comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where you find so much time for all your contributions, though your jibe on civility is undue. My added comments for this assessment are above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

1) nor do I. 2) It was not a jibe, I believe a line was crossed. 3) Replied to all above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Assessment closing comments

The submitting editor has presented 3 related articles for review, one of which I have reluctantly passed as a GA article at Parasitoid wasps. The 3 articles are parasitoid wasps, parasitoid, and parasitism. I say reluctant because the graphics used were of a somewhat simplistic nature, with the appearance of having been copied over into Wikipedia from power point presentations often used by lecturers when they are able to supplement poor diagrams with verbal supplementary discussions to offset inadequacies in the diagrams used in a lecture setting. Nonetheless, the submitting editor appears to be writing his articles at either a graduate level, or more likely a post-graduate level of expertise, which made the narrative in the article make-up for deficits in the diagrams and that article on parasitoid wasps received a GA assessment. The current article on Parasitism has a very poor lede sentence at its very start which the submitting editor refuses to fix, in spite of extensive discussion and options covered in the above assessment. The current 1st sentence of the lede uses no less than 6 commas to conflate too much material into a single poorly worded sentence. Also, the submitting editor appears to be fixated on the misquoted use of the word "continuum" as a substitute for the symbolic use of the phrase "continuum of severity" in his reliable source, also in the lede section. Third, some of the graphics apparently made by the submitting editor himself remain very poor in this article, again with the appearance of being copied from power point presentations which lecturers often use in classes where they supplement poor diagrams with their own words to compensate for these deficits. The graphics can be easily remedied by making them into tables, which the submitting editor refuses to do. My extensive discussion during this assessment which pointed out the contrast to an excellent graphic diagram which appears later in the article has apparently fallen on deaf ears. With my having put in several hours into this assessment, I am reluctant to now quick fail the article as not yet ready for GA promotion. The submitting editor is free to re-submit the article for assessment by another editor after the prescribed 2-3 week waiting period and to reconsider making useful enhancements to this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User:JohnWickTwo, I have just seen your closing statement, and I have a question about some procedural points. You say that the editor can "re-submit for assessment by another editor after the prescribed 2-3 week waiting period". Can you tell me where that is prescribed?

At Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Step 5: After the review, I see "If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may renominate the article immediately.". At the official guideline, Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Close and re-nominate, I see "The editors may re-nominate the article at any time, including immediately." These rules have been in place for years. I cannot find anything that contradicts this, but if you've seen it prescribed, then our documentation is inconsistent. Can you tell me how you came to believe that a waiting period is required? (We have had a problem with endless criteria creep through the telephone game, and perhaps that's all that happened. You know how it goes: someone says it might be a good idea this once, the next person says it's normal, another says that it's recommended, and then someone goes around declaring to good-faith new reviewers that it absolutely must be done this way, even though it's not true, and then all the new reviewers end up misinformed, through no fault of their own, and the idea takes on a life of its own, because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions.)

Also, on a minor point, images aren't technically required, and they are definitely not required to have any particular level of quality. You are entitled to "not list" any article that you don't feel like listing, but the GA criteria do not require, and have never required, that any included images actually be any good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a slow notification of your message to my account. The general principle for review periods and renominations for peer review articles is stated as: "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it". Regarding your comment on the assessment of quality of images, infoboxes, and graphic supplements, then the general rule is generally the same as for article development. If a caption or a graphic is introduced which does not use reliable sources then it is subject to deletion or removal as would text used within an article which appears without citation. I hope that helps. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)