Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myxobolus cerebralis

Myxobolus cerebralis (Whirling Disease)

Self-nom, though I couldn't have done this without Anilocra and Nixie. I think this overview of the parasite is one of the best you'll find anywhere online. The Whirling Disease Initiative called it an "excellent resource" (personal communication). I'd be happy to implement any suggestions you have. Dave (talk) 22:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Great article with excellent pictures. the wub (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously a very thorough article, and one on a topic that many would be happy to see represented on FA as an example of wonderful obscurity. Harro5 10:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Incredible. The finest FAC in quite a while. Simply amazing. Phils 10:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support The only thing I saw is the appendix and the links back to the relevant section is kind of odd. It would be much more standard Wikipedia style to just move the appendix to Salmonid susceptibility to whirling disease and add a See also: link to the end of the Susceptibility section. That's all I could see though. Great work. - Taxman 13:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. I'll do that now. Dave (talk) 16:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Very good, support, my only question is whether the disease this parasite causes should be covered entirely in the article on the parasite, or whether it should have its own article? But either way I think it's good enough to be an FA. Everyking 14:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the current version is probably best. Anyone interested in the parasite would be interested in the disease it causes and vice-versa. Splitting it into two articles would require flipping between the two pages to find everything out. Dave (talk) 16:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC) PS I bolded your "support" above to make it easier to tabulate. I hope you don't mind.
  • Comment Just to support Dave's comments, this is a discussion we've had elsewhere (e.g. Talk:Anisakis). My gut feeling is that this would be appropriate for the "major" parasites and diseases, such as Malaria vs. Plasmodium falciparum, but less so for the "lesser" (and it sticks in my throat to say that!) parasites and diseases. Anilocra 22:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Another comment, it's a bit of a problem with diseases, viruses, genetic disorders and parasites, do you right about the disease or the organism (gene) or both? Keeping them seperate often leads to two sortish articles that would be better together, the black death/Yersinia pestis and HIV/AIDS are some more notable exceptions. When the organism only causes one type of pathology, I think it's often best to combine the two and it's done well in this article.--nixie 23:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I learned something new. It had nice images and it was clear and comprehensive. Mgm|^(talk) 20:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very good. We need more like this. — mark ✎ 15:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• YAS - "Yet Another Support"  ALKIVAR™ 07:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Do fish have allies? - Bryan is Bantman 21:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right that the conventional meaning of "allies" makes no sense there. Biologists talk about a species having "allies" if there are related groups. For example, primates could be described as "apes, monkeys, and allies." It's not great terminology (it conjures up an image of related species banding together against a common threat) but it is commonly used. We could change it to "salmon, trout, and related groups" if you think it's confusing. Dave (talk) 05:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since it only affects Salmonidae the text in the brackets could be shortened to (salmon and trout), or delete it all toghther. --nixie 06:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)