Wikipedia:Peer review/Myxobolus cerebralis/archive1

Myxobolus cerebralis

This is a really important parasite of fish. I just uploaded a paper I wrote, and I'd like to make it featurable. Any suggestions? Am I missing anything important, are my facts right, etc? Thanks, Dave (talk) 18:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Morphology section contains the phrase "170 and 180 ?m" which will need clarification. Perhaps it's a μ that didn't copy correctly? Fg2 02:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

yeah. I did this in Word originally. Thanks for the heads-up. Dave (talk) 03:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Comments: 1) The first question I had when reading it is what type of organism is it. That seems like the first thing the article should say, but it was left to the end of the lead section. Perhaps that is appropriate in this case because it is not clear what it is. 2) Some of the redlinks seem like they have related articles, but you'll need to search for them. Specifically, I don't know that intermediate host needs to be linked given how short parasitism is. You should probably create at least a stub for myxozoan since that is the type here. 3) It's short for a featured article. Is there more to say about the topic? Overall it looks very good and the writing seems clean, so if it was expanded in similar quality I think if would be a great FAC. - Taxman 04:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for reading through this. 1) I put myxozoan in the first sentence. I think you're right that it's better this way. 2) It turns out the myxozoan article is at myxozoa, so I just fixed the links. I removed "intermediate host" entirely because it's not worth discussing here (the fish is actually the intermediate host, but it's called the definitive host for historical reasons). 3) I agree it should be expanded. Unfortunately, now that I'm home from college, I don't have access to the books I used to write it originally. I'll see what I can do. Dave (talk) 17:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you going back to visit those textboooks or are they sold backa nd gone? In any case the article is better than when I read it yesterday, so keep up the good work. Just be careful what links you make, and follow the naming conventions if you create them so that other people can find them too. - Taxman 22:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • The books are actually at the university library, and I'm home now (~100 miles away). I'll have to use online sources from here on, I guess. Thanks for your advice. Dave (talk) 01:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with the points raised, I also have some suggestions. I'd change the name of the biology section to life cycle, and add a section describing where the parasite is a problem (mabye with a map) and some estimate of losses caused by infection, in aquaculture and wild populations, that kind of data shouldn't be too hard to get your hands on. Also make sure the text describes all the technical stuff since there are so many red links for the technical terms.--nixie 09:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Good suggestions. The section was labeled "biology" because that's what my teacher wanted. It's now "life cycle." I'll see if I can get my hands on maps and impact assessments. And I'll do my best to make the text explain what things are (like I did with the worm) but I have no idea what some of the words (like merogony) mean myself. Thanks. Dave (talk) 17:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I did merogony. Let me know if your stuck on any of the others--nixie 01:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the only other one that isn't explained is sporogony. If we find anything interesting out about pansporocysts or sporoplasms of this organism, we should put it in, too. Thanks again for your help. Dave (talk) 03:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)