Talk:Plasmodium/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll take this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Glad to see this article so much improved after many years.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: will need to mention resistance etc as in body. All else ok.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I've marked one place that seems to need a citation.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Seems ok, Earwig happy.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I know there's much more at Malaria, but all the same I'd expect to see at least brief coverage of attempts at control with drugs, and Plasmodium's history of resistance to those drugs. It is a strikingly adaptable (aka difficult) parasite and that does need to be discussed, along with its evolvability. Try googling for 'plasmodium evolvability'.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All from Commons and tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The last 4 images all have the same message (critters get malaria) and they stray into the refs. Perhaps group them into a multiple image or gallery. Um, now you've removed all 4 of them, so the (correct) message is now lost. We should have one of them, maybe the lizard, say, so the message is conveyed that this isn't a purely human parasite.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm satisfied that the article now meets the criteria and am happy to award it GA status.

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for starting the review! Since the last four images all showed more-or-less the same thing, I replaced them with some more varied ones. I can re-insert a multiple image of the critters if you prefer the old way. I'm looking for a ref for the statement you tagged. I've got a book in mind; will check the physical library tomorrow. I still haven't decided how to write a section on evolvability without it entirely focusing on the human parasites P. falciparum and P. vivax. Let me think about it for a few more days. Perhaps there's some literature out there on treating birds and lizards from the zoo veterinary crowd.

As long as I've got your attention on the page, any thoughts on ways the article could be improved in the future would be most welcome! Thanks again! Ajpolino (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment in the Images box above - we don't need all 4 (though it's an option) but we do need at least 1, and the lizard's caption says it well. Glad of progress and thought. The evolvability will surely be easiest with the falciparum/vivax evidence. And btw pings shouldn't be needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Reinserted the bird and lizard. Ajpolino (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, well, ok, we're jumping about very fast here.

Plasmodium sporozoites from a mosquito

I'd suggest using the sporozoites image too, next to the life-cycle section, which is certainly very brief indeed given its importance. The section needs to say enough to make it clear what the life-cycle involves and why in evolutionary terms the parasite should need two hosts.

Okay. Sorry, I tried to fix things in a rush yesterday and made a bit of a mess with the pictures.

I went through today and added a short paragraph on drug treatment and resistance. I also merged some of the lifecycle info that was presented both in the life cycle and vertebrate hosts section. Is that what you were imaginging as far as info on drugs/evolvability? I'm happy to add more.

I'll also add a bit to the life cycle section (including the sporozoite picture). Thanks again for the feedback! Ajpolino (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Much better.

• Why don't you add a brief word on the etymology (of the name Plasmodium) to the rather gloomy note on 'Terminology'? And rename it to 'Etymology'. In fact the terminological note could become a footnote really, it's far too prominent at the moment.

• Shouldn't all the subgenera be in italics?

• We should remove one of the two lists of Subgenera - I suggest we kill the one in the taxobox, it's no help to anybody and is less detailed than the one in the Taxonomy section.

• The Phylogeny at the moment is a bit of a despairing gesture, 'It's difficult'. Well, ok, but how do we know they are Haemosporida in the class Aconoidasida, phylum Apicomplexa then? When did these evolve (mya, geological periods)? What are the sister taxa? — A cladogram would help.

• The organisation/structure needs some work. Perhaps we should start with Description, but it's not a classical 'how to recognise this genus section' of that name, so I'm open to discussion; perhaps we should add a paragraph on exactly that at the start ('Plasmodium is hard to describe as it takes different forms ...'; and perhaps the Etymology/Terminology could become a small footnote in this section, which would place History at the end, makes more sense.)

• The next section ought really to be 'Evolution' with subsections 'Taxonomy' and 'Phylogeny'. Life-cycle can follow, with Hosts as a subsection, and Forms (sporozoite, merozoite, etc) as another subsection.

Guess the order is not so important. There is probably sufficient detail on forms for a basic overview article.

Agreed. There is currently an Apicomplexan life cycle article listing forms and definitions. Cleaning up and expanding it (and Apicomplexa) is on my to do list.

Took a pass at improving the phylogeny and taxonomy info, thoughts? Also, I'm happy to reorder the sections, though I'm unsure what to do with the host section. Not all of it fits nicely under "Lifecycle"; some seems to be more akin to an "Ecology and distribution" section... I'm still working on verifying the part tagged as citation needed. I may have to reword it. Thanks again for your comments! Ajpolino (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad there's progress. I'd much prefer if you treated each of my comments as a discussion thread, replying to it when you believe you have completed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• As the table shows, the main remaining issue is to rework the lead section to ensure it summarizes the article fully. A good place to start is simply to go through all the main sections of the article and check each one is covered by a sentence in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gave it a go, per your recommendation. Artful writing is not my greatest strength, so a copyedit or suggestions would be most welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)